Local listings management · October 2026 Edition
Whitespark vs Birdeye
Zero of fourteen models named Whitespark first on the direct prompt; one named Birdeye. Whitespark was named by nine of the fourteen models and Birdeye by fourteen and Whitespark carries 18 labels and Birdeye 34, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in eight categories this edition.
First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate17%12%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#8A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels1834A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Whitespark reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Synup was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. BrightLocal vs Whitespark · BrightLocal vs Birdeye · Moz Local vs Whitespark
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 local listings management page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
WhitesparkFirst choices, of fourteen modelsBirdeye
Direct01
Paraphrase00
Comparative001 against Whitespark
Budget-constrained20
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Whitespark · 4 against Birdeye
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 Whitespark and Birdeye 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 4.1 Fast | | | | | ||
| 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 | | | |
Whitespark Birdeye first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Whitespark on the left and Birdeye on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Whitespark and Birdeye stood in it.
Birdeye first, Whitespark not the choice
1 of 14 modelsWhitespark was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Mistral SmallBirdeye, Yext alternatives: Moz Local, Synup
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Yext alternatives: Birdeye, BrightLocal, SOCi, Synup
Gemini 3.5 FlashSemrush Local alternatives: BrightLocal, Synup, Whitespark
Llama 4 MaverickBrightLocal Track, Synup alternatives: Birdeye, Moz Local, Yext
Neither was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniYext alternatives: Uberall
Perplexity SonarSynup alternatives: BrightLocal, Semrush Listing Management, Uberall, Yext
Grok 4.1 FastBrightLocal alternatives: Moz Local, Synup, Yext
DeepSeek V4 FlashBrightLocal alternatives: Semrush Local, Synup, Uberall
Qwen 3.7 FlashSynup alternatives: BrightLocal, Uberall
Kimi K2BrightLocal alternatives: SOCi, Semrush Listing Management, Synup
GLM 4.7 FlashXBrightLocal alternatives: LocaliQ, Semrush Local, Yext
MiniMax M2.5BrightLocal alternatives: Synup, Yext
GPT-6 LunaBrightLocal alternatives: Yext
Muse Glimmer 30BBrightLocal, Synup alternatives: Semrush Listing Management
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
Whitespark leads by four points.
Whitespark4%#4 of 9Birdeye0%#7 of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: Birdeye leads at enterprise.
Birdeye9%#3 of 9Whitespark0%#– of 9What the models said about Whitespark
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“"BrightLocal and Whitespark are okay, but they toss you into a lot of really low quality, trashy directories."” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“limited features beyond ranking/reporting, so it may not be enough if you need full listings governance” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“Not a full listings management platform — more of a specialized citation tool.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · soft negative
“The Best "One-Time Fee" Option: Whitespark ... It is the most cost-effective way to get a clean, highly authoritative listing footprint without a recurring software bill.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Whitespark stands out as one of the most affordable local listings management platforms, with entry-level pricing as low as $1/month” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · first choice
“Select tools like Whitespark or BrightLocal build listings manually and give you full ownership of the accounts” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · alternative
What the models said about Birdeye
No label in this category carried a quote.
Also compared
BrightLocal vs WhitesparkBrightLocal vs BirdeyeMoz Local vs WhitesparkMoz Local vs BirdeyeSynup vs WhitesparkSynup vs BirdeyeYext vs WhitesparkYext vs BirdeyeSemrush Local vs WhitesparkSemrush Local vs BirdeyeWhitespark vs UberallUberall vs BirdeyeAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full local listings 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.