Four of fourteen models named Tenable Vulnerability Management first on the direct prompt; one named ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus. Tenable Vulnerability Management was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus by ten and Tenable Vulnerability Management carries 60 labels and ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in seven categories this edition.
Named in two 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, Tenable Vulnerability Management and ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus were named in the same answer thirty times, of the 196 answers naming Tenable Vulnerability Management and the 49 naming ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus. In those answers ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus took the first choice three times and Tenable Vulnerability Management eight.
| 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: 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
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“has seen a slight decline in user preference and is considered less favored compared to top-tier solutions” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“Teams evaluating it as a standalone vulnerability management platform will find it incomplete.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Rapid7 InsightVM or ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus offer the best balance of features, pricing, and usability” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“covers the basics at a price point that works for smaller teams in Windows-heavy mid-market organizations” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus is the best overall choice when you need a complete platform” Perplexity Sonar · budget 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.