Dashboards and data visualization
Asked as “business intelligence and dashboard tool”, and as “data visualization platform”, on behalf of a mid-market B2B software company. 48 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, six models each.
Standing · first-choice share
52%
Clear leader
52Microsoft Power BI25Looker Studio08Metabase15others
52% of first choices, clear leader.
Since September 2026▼−11Since September 2026: 62% → 51%, −11 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.Microsoft Power BI held the lead, −11 points on 62%, past the floor.
The standing
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, over all six models, for a mid-market B2B software company. Ordered by share.
ProductFirst-choice shareNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
01
Microsoft Power BI52%17%71endorsed leader▼−11Since September 2026: 62% → 51%, −11 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.62% → 51%
Microsoft Power BI52%17%71endorsed leader▼−11Since September 2026: 62% → 51%, −11 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.62% → 51%02
Looker Studio Lab in the set25%10%29accepted challenger▲+10Since September 2026: 14% → 24%, +10 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.14% → 24%
Looker Studio Lab in the set25%10%29accepted challenger▲+10Since September 2026: 14% → 24%, +10 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.14% → 24%03
Tableau8%21%63accepted challenger▲+4Since September 2026: 6% → 10%, +4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.6% → 10%
Tableau8%21%63accepted challenger▲+4Since September 2026: 6% → 10%, +4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.6% → 10%04
Metabase8%6%31accepted challenger▼−3Since September 2026: 10% → 7%, −3 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.10% → 7%
Metabase8%6%31accepted challenger▼−3Since September 2026: 10% → 7%, −3 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.10% → 7%05
Zoho Analytics2%4%25accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 2%
Zoho Analytics2%4%25accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 2%06
Sigma2%0%15accepted challenger▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 2%
Sigma2%0%15accepted challenger▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 2%07
Domo2%21%24accepted challenger▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 2%
Domo2%21%24accepted challenger▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 2%Show the four products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
11
Sisense0%29%17criticized challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
Sisense0%29%17criticized challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%08
Looker Lab in the set0%26%47criticized challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
Looker Lab in the set0%26%47criticized challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%09
Qlik Sense0%17%29accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%
Qlik Sense0%17%29accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%10
ThoughtSpot0%12%17accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%
ThoughtSpot0%12%17accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%The floor is 12 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. How the floor is measured
Bars are the share of first choices, 0 to 100Every product with at least 10 labels here. Every product name links to its product page.
Looker Studio is made by Google, whose model Gemini 3.1 Pro is in the set. On the four share prompts that model made it the first choice zero times of 4; the other five models zero times of 20. Looker is made by Google, whose model Gemini 3.1 Pro is in the set. On the four share prompts that model made it the first choice zero times of 4; the other five models zero times of 20. Lab treatment is defined on the method page; the row is marked, not excluded.
Head to head
All ten head-to-head pages: the top five products, each against each
Recommended versus criticized
Every product with at least 10 labels here, on both axes. The 30% line names a quadrant, not the verdict above: that one needs more than 40%.
Criticized challengerCriticized default
Negative label rate →
0102030405060708091011Accepted challengerEndorsed leader
0%First-choice share → · lines at 30% share and 25% negative70%
Key
01Microsoft Power BI52%
Microsoft Power BI52%02Looker Studio25%
Looker Studio25%03Tableau8%
Tableau8%04Metabase8%
Metabase8%05Zoho Analytics2%
Zoho Analytics2%06Sigma2%
Sigma2%07Domo2%
Domo2%08Looker0%
Looker0%09Qlik Sense0%
Qlik Sense0%10ThoughtSpot0%
ThoughtSpot0%11Sisense0%
Sisense0%What they warned about
A high negative share on a product with few labels is a warning. A low share on a product with many labels is salience, not sentiment.
Looker26%
12 of 47 labels negative · 12 of 6 models · 2 hard negative
“**Avoid Looker** unless you have a dedicated data team and the budget for its complexity and cost.” Mistral Small, negative prompt
Tableau21%
13 of 63 labels negative · 12 of 6 models
“Avoid investing in massive enterprise platforms (like full-scale Tableau Server... Avoid implementing any self-service tool (Tableau, Power BI, Sisense) without establishing data governance” Qwen 3.7 Flash, negative prompt
Microsoft Power BI17%
12 of 71 labels negative · 10 of 6 models
“**Dataset limits and performance**: Pro tier caps at 1GB, slows on large data/DAX queries... **When to avoid**: Non-Microsoft stacks, massive datasets” Grok 4.20, negative prompt
MicroStrategy
100%
7 of 7 labels negative · 7 of 6 models · 5 hard negative
“Businesses usually leave MicroStrategy over pricing that is not fully transparent and skews expensive, a steep learning curve” Muse Glimmer 30B, negative prompt
What they cite
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list: fourteen of the six in this edition.
Sites the answers cite
76 of 84 answers in this category came back with a source list, from 14 of 6 models: citations where the model returns them, or the search results it consulted. 963 links across 277 sites, every framing counted. Ranked by the number of answers carrying the site or page. None of the 36 answers across every segment cited this index's own page for the category.
vendor site · ThoughtSpot26 answers · 38 citations · 13 models
vendor site · Zoho24 answers · 44 citations · 10 models
vendor site · Domo22 answers · 31 citations · 10 models
vendor site · Viasocket18 answers · 39 citations · 10 models
vendor site · Querio16 answers · 21 citations · 7 models
vendor site · Holistics16 answers · 17 citations · 9 models
15 answers · 16 citations · 10 models
vendor site · Qlik13 answers · 15 citations · 9 models
vendor site · Improvado13 answers · 13 citations · 8 models
vendor site · Medium13 answers · 13 citations · 9 models
vendor site · LinkedIn12 answers · 16 citations · 6 models
12 answers · 14 citations · 9 models
Pages the answers cite
The ten pages named in the most answers, by full address. A page here is one the models returned with a recommendation, not one the index endorses.
13 answers · 8 models
11 answers · 8 models
11 answers · 9 models
10 answers · 8 models
10 answers · 8 models
10 answers · 5 models
9 answers · 4 models
9 answers · 8 models
9 answers · 7 models
9 answers · 7 models
Search against answers
Each company's standing in the answers beside its site's footprint in Google search, one row a site: the products the models named on it with their shares, and the share they add up to; monthly searches on Google, and DataForSEO's estimate of AI search demand (modeled from search signals, directional, not a count of queries to any assistant), for the most-searched of the company's and its products' names (the name is in each row's hover text); estimated monthly organic visits to the site; and its best position in Google's top ten for “best business intelligence and dashboard tool”, “business intelligence and dashboard tool”. US estimates from DataForSEO and Google's Ads Transparency Center. A small company's site, or a mid-sized company's site for its flagship, is marked company; a product on a large parent's site (Google, Microsoft) has no site figures. A column with no figures for this category is left out, and an empty cell means none were seen, not none exist. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
| Company and products | Share | Own site cited | Name searches, Google | AI search demand, est. | Organic visits | Paid search a month, est. | Google ads, last 30 days | Best Google position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft parent site Microsoft Power BI 52% | 52% | 242 | 2,240,000 | 403,136 | ||||
| Google cloud.google.com Looker Studio 25%, Looker 0% | 25% | 155 | 40,500 | 452 | 7,405,347 | |||
| Tableau tableau.com | 8% | 215 | 135,000 | 15,635 | 1,201,809 | $23 | 85 | 3 |
| Metabase metabase.com | 8% | 112 | 14,800 | 337 | 60,151 | 1 | ||
| Zoho parent site Zoho Analytics 2% | 2% | 89 | 2,900 | 23 | ||||
| Sigma sigmacomputing.com | 2% | 31 | 246,000 | 60,163 | 67,518 | |||
| Domo domo.com | 2% | 75 | 135,000 | 4,397 | 255,482 | 87 | 5 | |
| Qlik Sense qlik.com | 0% | 73 | 3,600 | 379 | 705,831 | 55 | 1 | |
| ThoughtSpot thoughtspot.com | 0% | 53 | 8,100 | 269 | 207,491 | $2,050 | 75 | 9 |
| Sisense sisense.com | 0% | 45 | 2,400 | 140 | 29,511 | $243 | 15 |
Google's top ten for the two searches hold 16 sites; 3 of them are among the sites the models cited here (domo.com, qlik.com, thoughtspot.com). The first result for “best business intelligence and dashboard tool” is reddit.com.
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.ShowHide
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.
ShowHideModelDirect“What is the best business intelligence and dashboard tool for a mid-market B2B company?”Paraphrase“Which data visualization platform would you recommend to a mid-sized B2B company?”Comparative“What are the top business intelligence tools and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best business intelligence and dashboard tool for a company with a limited budget?”Scale-constrained“We are a 500 person company evaluating a business intelligence and dashboard tool. What should we look at?”Negative“Which business intelligence tools should I avoid or be cautious about?”
Claude Opus 5no first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Claude Opus 4.8no first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
GPT-6 Astrano first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
GPT-5.6 Solno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Gemini 3.1 Prono first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Perplexity Sonar Prono first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Bold is the first choiceAlternatives are counted; the count opens them.What the answer argued against
The record
One row per call: the version string exactly as returned, whether the model searched, sources cited, and latency. Full answer text is in the free responses file. Download the record
Zero rows: every prompt, every model, every answer.
| Prompt | Model | Version string | Time (UTC) | Searched | Sources | Latency |
|---|
Normalization in this category
Every judgment call made between the raw labels and the numbers above, listed so it is visible and reversible.
ShowHide
Category-scoped readings
Google (Looker) read as Looker Studio
Microsoft (Power BI) read as Microsoft Power BI
Microsoft Power BI Desktop (Free Tier) read as Microsoft Power BI
Oracle read as Oracle Analytics
Qlik read as Qlik Sense
Zoho read as Zoho Analytics
Unresolved, counted raw
DataEase
Einstein Analytics
Microsoft’s Fabric ecosystem
Open-source BI tools
Oracle Business Intelligence
Periscope Data
SAP Business Intelligence
SAP Lumira Discovery
Salesforce (Tableau)
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.