| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data management platforms | GTM data and infrastructure | 0% | 158 of 159 | 57% | 23 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Audience and consumer insights platforms | Marketing | 0% | 96 of 155 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by SparkToro at 19% |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMP | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 170 → 158 of 159 |
| Audience insights | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 96 of 155, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 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. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Best For: Enterprise marketing teams already using Adobe products ... Adobe is steering new customers toward its Real-Time CDP” MiniMax M2.5 · DMP · comparative prompt · alternative
“Need audience segmentation, activation and media targeting for advertising \u2192 Adobe Audience Manager / Real-Time CDP” Muse Glimmer 30B · DMP · comparative prompt · alternative
“Choose Lotame Spherical or Adobe Audience Manager if your priority is audience building for programmatic” Muse Glimmer 30B · DMP · direct prompt · alternative
“Best if you specifically need a classic DMP for ad-tech workflows: Adobe Audience Manager.” GPT-5.4 mini · DMP · paraphrase prompt · alternative
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“Do not buy a traditional DMP... the traditional DMP market (historically dominated by players like Adobe Audience Manager, Salesforce Audience Studio, and Oracle’s defunct BlueKai) is virtually obsolete.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DMP · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“traditional enterprise Data Management Platforms (DMPs)—like Adobe Audience Manager or Salesforce Audience Studio—are not only highly expensive ... but are also becoming obsolete.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DMP · budget prompt · hard negative
“Traditional DMPs (like Adobe Audience Manager or Salesforce DMP)... are largely obsolete due to the deprecation of third-party cookies.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DMP · direct prompt · hard negative
“you should avoid traditional, enterprise-grade Data Management Platforms (DMPs) like Adobe Audience Manager, Lotame, or Oracle CDK” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DMP · budget prompt · hard negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 62 of the 65 answers that named Adobe Audience Manager and are not a share of its labels.
223 of the 223 domain citations in answers naming Adobe Audience Manager came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
Fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · LinkedIn · Crunchbase
What Adobe Audience Manager's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: developer.adobe.com/audience-manager, adobe.com/products/adobeconnect/audience-engagement.html, developer.adobe.com/client-sdks/solution/adobe-audience-manager, adobe.com/accessibility/compliance/adobe-audience-manager-2019.html, helpx.adobe.com/customer-care-office-hours/audience-manager/AAM-Profile-merge-rule-3-1.html. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Adobe Audience Manager's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Adobe Audience Manager, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Adobe Audience Manager by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: