Digital asset management
Asked as “digital asset management system”, and as “DAM platform”, on behalf of a mid-market B2B software company. 53 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, six models each.
Standing · first-choice share
45%
Clear leader
45Canto17Filecamp15Bynder23others
45% of first choices, clear leader.
Since September 2026▲+12Since September 2026: 34% → 46%, +12 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.Canto held the lead, +12 points on 34%, 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
Canto45%4%52endorsed leader▲+12Since September 2026: 34% → 46%, +12 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.34% → 46%
Canto45%4%52endorsed leader▲+12Since September 2026: 34% → 46%, +12 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.34% → 46%02
Filecamp17%5%22accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 19% → 17%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.19% → 17%
Filecamp17%5%22accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 19% → 17%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.19% → 17%03
Bynder15%18%55accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 15% → 15%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.15% → 15%
Bynder15%18%55accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 15% → 15%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.15% → 15%04
ResourceSpace6%0%17accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 4% → 4%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.4% → 4%
ResourceSpace6%0%17accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 4% → 4%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.4% → 4%05
Brandfolder4%9%45accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 6% → 4%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.6% → 4%
Brandfolder4%9%45accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 6% → 4%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.6% → 4%06
Acquia DAM2%5%21accepted challenger▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 2%
Acquia DAM2%5%21accepted 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
Pics.io2%0%10accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
Pics.io2%0%10accepted 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
Air2%20%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%
Air2%20%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%Show the five products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
13
Adobe Experience Manager Assets0%47%30criticized challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
Adobe Experience Manager Assets0%47%30criticized challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%12
Aprimo0%12%16accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
Aprimo0%12%16accepted 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
Cloudinary0%9%22accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%
Cloudinary0%9%22accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%11
MediaValet0%5%20accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
MediaValet0%5%20accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%10
Frontify0%0%16accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
Frontify0%0%16accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 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.
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 →
01020304050607080910111213Accepted challengerEndorsed leader
0%First-choice share → · lines at 30% share and 25% negative60%
Key
01Canto45%
Canto45%02Filecamp17%
Filecamp17%03Bynder15%
Bynder15%04ResourceSpace6%
ResourceSpace6%05Brandfolder4%
Brandfolder4%06Acquia DAM2%
Acquia DAM2%07Pics.io2%
Pics.io2%08Air2%
Air2%09Cloudinary0%
Cloudinary0%10Frontify0%
Frontify0%11MediaValet0%
MediaValet0%12Aprimo0%
Aprimo0%13Adobe Experience Manager Assets0%
Adobe Experience Manager Assets0%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.
Adobe Experience Manager Assets47%
14 of 30 labels negative · 8 of 6 models · 2 hard negative
“Avoid if: you're a mid-sized company, use diverse tools, or need fast implementation.” DeepSeek V4 Flash, negative prompt
Bynder18%
10 of 55 labels negative · 6 of 6 models · 1 hard negative
“Avoid pricier ones like Canto or Bynder unless scaling up.” Grok 4.20, budget prompt
Brandfolder9%
4 of 45 labels negative · 4 of 6 models
“Platforms like Bynder and Brandfolder serve mid-market brand management needs but lack the lifecycle depth and governance infrastructure required at enterprise scale.” Muse Glimmer 30B, comparative prompt
Dropbox50%
4 of 8 labels negative · 3 of 6 models · 3 hard negative
“Reliance on generic tools like Dropbox/Google Drive as "DAM substitutes"—they lack metadata, rights management, and versioning.” Grok 4.20, 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
78 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. 1075 links across 203 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 · Canto53 answers · 65 citations · 14 models
vendor site · Zapier35 answers · 35 citations · 11 models
vendor site · Templafy30 answers · 32 citations · 11 models
27 answers · 49 citations · 12 models
26 answers · 36 citations · 11 models
vendor site · Air24 answers · 31 citations · 11 models
vendor site · Cloudinary24 answers · 30 citations · 12 models
vendor site · VNTANA23 answers · 26 citations · 11 models
22 answers · 26 citations · 11 models
20 answers · 28 citations · 9 models
vendor site · Frontify20 answers · 23 citations · 11 models
vendor site · Filecamp19 answers · 31 citations · 10 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.
41 answers · 14 models
35 answers · 11 models
30 answers · 11 models
20 answers · 9 models
18 answers · 9 models
17 answers · 11 models
16 answers · 9 models
15 answers · 9 models
13 answers · 9 models
12 answers · 5 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 digital asset management system”, “digital asset management system”. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canto canto.com | 45% | 145 | 22,200 | 11,609 | 81,784 | 65 | ||
| Filecamp filecamp.com | 17% | 72 | 590 | 0 | 11,252 | 17 | ||
| Bynder bynder.com | 15% | 217 | 6,600 | 136 | 94,929 | 62 | 5 | |
| ResourceSpace resourcespace.com | 6% | 39 | 590 | 5 | 10,427 | 0 | 4 | |
| Brandfolder brandfolder.com | 4% | 107 | 4,400 | 59 | 50,163 | 0 | ||
| Acquia acquia.com Acquia DAM 2% | 2% | 75 | 3,600 | 216 | 72,942 company | $2,943 | 92 | 7 |
| Pics.io pics.io | 2% | 25 | 390 | 7 | 84,455 | 6 | ||
| Air air.inc | 2% | 62 | 201,000 | 1,766,606 | 27,643 | $1,275 | 4 | |
| Widen | 2% | |||||||
| OpenAsset openasset.com | 2% | 5 |
Google's top ten for the two searches hold 12 sites; 2 of them are among the sites the models cited here (cmswire.com, thedigitalprojectmanager.com). The first result for “best digital asset management system” is thedigitalprojectmanager.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 digital asset management system for a mid-market B2B company?”Paraphrase“Which DAM platform would you recommend to a mid-sized B2B company?”Comparative“What are the top digital asset management systems and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best digital asset management system for a company with a limited budget?”Scale-constrained“We are a 500 person company evaluating a digital asset management system. What should we look at?”Negative“Which digital asset management systems 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
Acquia read as Acquia DAM
Adobe read as Adobe Experience Manager Assets
Adobe Experience Manager read as Adobe Experience Manager Assets
Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) read as Adobe Experience Manager Assets
OpenText read as OpenText Media Management
OpenText Digital Asset Management read as OpenText Media Management
Unresolved, counted raw
Adobe Assets
Adobe Lightroom
Arc XP Experience Platform
Bynder Widen (Acquia)
CrowdRiff
DemoUp Cliplister
ExactTarget / other lightweight DAMs
Flight by Canto
Frame.io
MediaVaunt
Mediavine
NetX
Nextcloud Hub
Nuxeo By Hyland
PhotoShelter for Brands
Pickit
Pimcore DAM
hyperCMS DAM Server
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.