Eight of fourteen models named Rapid7 InsightVM first on the direct prompt; four named Tenable Vulnerability Management. Both were named by all fourteen models and Rapid7 InsightVM carries 57 labels and Tenable Vulnerability Management 60, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Named in seven categories this edition.
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the vulnerability management platforms page.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Rapid7 InsightVM and Tenable Vulnerability Management were named in the same answer 144 times, of the 180 answers naming Rapid7 InsightVM and the 196 naming Tenable Vulnerability Management. In those answers Tenable Vulnerability Management took the first choice sixty-eight times and Rapid7 InsightVM seventeen.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | ||||||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.20 | ||||||
| Mistral Small | ||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | ||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | ||||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | ||||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | ||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B |
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid for tight budgets: Enterprise-heavy tools like Rapid7 InsightVM” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“users report high system resource utilization from the Insight Agent on older servers and aggressive upselling tactics” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“reviews cite substantial initial configuration effort, a demanding console, and reporting limitations” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“Often cited as the best fit for organizations of ~500–2,000 employees; strong remediation workflow and good pricing.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Rapid7 InsightVM offers the best balance of features, usability, and value” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · first choice
“Qualys VMDR or Rapid7 InsightVM are the strongest choices. They are purpose-built for this market segment.” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid: Tenable unless you have specific needs for OT/legacy asset coverage and budget for $10K+ annually.” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · hard negative
“Vendors to watch out for: Traditional tools like Tenable and Qualys historically rely on IP/asset tracking that can become expensive or frustrating to manage” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Tenable or Qualys when remediation automation is a core requirement: Both are strong detection platforms, but remediation may require additional products” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“Excellent broad coverage (network, cloud, OT, containers), strong prioritization with threat intel, compliance reporting. Good for hybrid setups; often tops "best overall" lists.” Grok 4.20 · scale prompt · first choice
“Tenable Nessus and Tenable Vulnerability Management rank as the best overall solution due to strong integrations and comprehensive capabilities.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“Tenable Vulnerability Management is the top all-around choice due to its comprehensive coverage and strong market reputation” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.