2 categories · RankedAttackIQ
AttackIQ is a breach and attack simulation platform that continuously validates security controls and identifies gaps in them · attackiq.com ↗
Strongest at enterprise. Ranked 95 of 96 for small business buyers.
The standing depends on who is buying. Every model is asked the same questions for each company size.
Vanta is first at 20%.
Cymulate is first at 35%. 0 of 14 models made it the first choice when asked directly.
Cymulate is first at 27%.
Why models recommend it
“AttackIQ is strongly associated with the original BAS category and still emphasizes continuous security control validation”GPT-5.4 mini · Comparative question · first choice
“Top Pick: AttackIQ (Flex Model) ... widely considered the best option for companies trying to balance cost with functionality”Qwen 3.7 Flash · Budget-constrained question · first choice
“Choose Cymulate/Picus/SafeBreach/AttackIQ when the priority is continuous, repeatable control validation”Muse Glimmer 30B · Comparative question · first choice
“I'd recommend AttackIQ as the top choice”GLM 4.7 FlashX · Paraphrase question · first choice
What gives them pause
“Criticisms include potential unsuitability for very large enterprises in some older reviews, and calls for better AI integration or documentation.”Grok 4.20 · Negative question · warning
“A few (like AttackIQ) have limited free/low-cost tiers, but they don't match the flexibility of open-source”Grok 4.20 · Budget-constrained question · warning
“questioned suitability for some larger environments. Validate scalability, architecture, and performance”Perplexity Sonar · Negative question · warning
“it also shows a 50% negative rate in small business contexts, suggesting mixed or poor user experiences”Mistral Small · Negative question · warning
Also on the shortlist
The products named in the same answers as AttackIQ, over the 155 answers that named it, and how often each was the first choice instead.
| Product | Named together | Picked instead | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 140 | 49 | Compare → | |
| 134 | 11 | View → | |
| 125 | 29 | Compare → | |
| 96 | 6 | Compare → | |
| 47 | 0 | View → | |
| 36 | 0 | View → | |
| 25 | 0 | View → | |
| 21 | 3 | View → | |
| 18 | 5 | Compare → | |
| 14 | 1 | Compare → |
What the models named instead of AttackIQ →
A side-by-side page exists where both products are among a category's top eight.
At a glance
Stated on AttackIQ's own site, not checked by Gane.
- For
- teams and leadership
- Price stated
- Product can be in the high end in terms of pricing but it is money well spent!
- Free plan or trial
- Try It Free
- Customers named
- ISS World Services A/S, SA Power Networks, ESED, Dimensional Fund Advisors
How this is measured
Fourteen AI models from 12 labs are asked the same buying questions six ways, for three company sizes. Standings refresh every edition.
Gane sells AI visibility software. No company can pay to change a result.
Read the method →Sources returned with these answers
Fourteen of the fourteen models returned a source list in this edition: five return the pages they cited and nine the search results they consulted. These counts come from 140 of the 155 answers that named AttackIQ and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
399 of the 476 domain citations in answers naming AttackIQ came from a third party's page. Forty-three were to the publisher's own pages (the Gane Index), which the models cite like any other source; they are not counted as a third party.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Warning | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
What it publishes
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News or press | 533 | 4 | 2026-09-23 | SIEM, EDR | |
| Report or ebook | 97 | 4 | 2026-09-25 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 80 | 3 | 2026-07-23 | SIEM | |
| Glossary or explainer | 68 | 0 | 2025-05-20 | GRC | |
| Podcast or video | 44 | 0 | 2020-07-01 | ||
| Case study | 27 | 0 | 2021-01-25 | ||
| Blog | 18 | 2 | 2026-09-22 | SIEM | |
| Conference or event | 6 | 0 | 2026-06-09 | ||
| Comparison | 6 | 0 | 2025-07-25 | ||
| Template or tool | 1 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-25Most wanted report or ebook
- 2026-09-23Attackiq ava agentic os named ai powered enterprise agent solution of the year news or press
- 2026-09-22Attackiq names dave mihelcic field cto federal blog
- 2026-09-11Attacklq enterprise exposure management module blog
- 2026-08-10Forward deployed engineering report or ebook
- 2026-08-04Disa selects attackiq news or press
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page attackiq.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.