Vulnerability management platforms · November 2026 Edition
Tenable Vulnerability Management vs Wiz
Four of fourteen models named Tenable Vulnerability Management first on the direct prompt; one named Wiz. Tenable Vulnerability Management was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Wiz by ten and Tenable Vulnerability Management carries 60 labels and Wiz 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in seven categories this edition.
Named in seventeen categories this edition.
First-choice share19%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate15%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#8A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels6018A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Tenable Vulnerability Management reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Rapid7 InsightVM was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Rapid7 InsightVM vs Tenable Vulnerability Management · Rapid7 InsightVM vs Wiz · Tenable Vulnerability Management vs Qualys VMDR
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.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Tenable Vulnerability ManagementFirst choices, of fourteen modelsWiz
Direct411 against Tenable Vulnerability Management
Paraphrase41
Comparative110
Budget-constrained102 against Tenable Vulnerability Management
Scale-constrained101 against Tenable Vulnerability Management
Negative205 against Tenable Vulnerability Management
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Tenable Vulnerability Management and Wiz stood in it.
| 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 | | | | |
Tenable Vulnerability Management Wiz first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Tenable Vulnerability Management on the left and Wiz on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Tenable Vulnerability Management and Wiz stood in it.
Tenable Vulnerability Management first, Wiz an alternative
4 of 14 modelsWiz was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: CrowdStrike, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Wiz
Grok 4.20Tenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management, ESET Vulnerability & Patch Mgmt, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Syxsense
Mistral SmallTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Qualys VMDR
GPT-6 LunaTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM
Wiz first, Tenable Vulnerability Management an alternative
1 of 14 modelsTenable Vulnerability Management was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashRapid7 InsightVM, Wiz alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Orca Security, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Neither was the first choice, one was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Perplexity SonarRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Vicarius vRx, Wiz
DeepSeek V4 FlashManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Llama 4 MaverickIntruder alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Qwen 3.7 FlashRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Intruder, Tenable Nessus, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Vicarius vRx
GLM 4.7 FlashXRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management, WithSecure Elements
Muse Glimmer 30BRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Neither was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice
Kimi K2Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR
MiniMax M2.5Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Intruder, Tenable Nessus
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.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Tenable Vulnerability Management leads by eight points.
Tenable Vulnerability Management8%#4 of 12Wiz0%#– of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
Tenable Vulnerability Management leads by fifteen points.
Tenable Vulnerability Management19%#2 of 10Wiz4%#8 of 10Enterprise
Tenable Vulnerability Management leads by fifty-four points.
Tenable Vulnerability Management54%#1 of 9Wiz0%#6 of 9What the models said about Tenable Vulnerability Management
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
What the models said about Wiz
No label in this category carried a quote.
Also compared
Rapid7 InsightVM vs Tenable Vulnerability ManagementRapid7 InsightVM vs WizTenable Vulnerability Management vs Qualys VMDRTenable Vulnerability Management vs ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager PlusTenable Vulnerability Management vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability ManagementTenable Vulnerability Management vs IntruderTenable Vulnerability Management vs OpenVASQualys VMDR vs WizManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus vs WizMicrosoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs WizIntruder vs WizOpenVAS vs WizAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full vuln management standing
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.