Every category where a model named Alchemer for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Review and reputation management	Marketing	2%	16 of 103	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Birdeye at 26%
Customer feedback and surveys	Customer	2%	14 of 104	12%	8	under 10 labels · led by Google Forms at 15%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Alchemer yet. The next is due October 1, 2026. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Alchemer across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	0	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	1	1	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct3 labels1

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative11 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained10 labels1

Negative8 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative38 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Alchemer is a strong fit for mid-size to enterprise businesses that need advanced feedback collection and in-depth analysis” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Reviews · direct prompt · first choice

“Mid-market suites (Alchemer, Zonka, SurveySparrow, SurveyMonkey Enterprise, Survicate) often hit that sweet spot” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Feedback · scale prompt · first choice

“If budget is constrained ($5K–$15K/year): SurveySparrow, Alchemer, or Survicate” Kimi K2 · Feedback · scale prompt · alternative

“Alchemer | Mid-sized business surveys | From ~$50/mo” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Feedback · negative prompt · alternative

And against it

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.

“Occasional uptime and integration issues reported” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Feedback · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Alchemer, over the 38 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Alchemer was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Qualtrics36 of 3815Not in the top three

Medallia30 of 388Not in the top three

SurveyMonkey27 of 380Not in the top three

Typeform15 of 380Not in the top three

InMoment14 of 381Not in the top three

Survicate12 of 381Not in the top three

Zonka Feedback9 of 381Not in the top three

SurveySparrow9 of 380Not in the top three

Google Forms8 of 381Not in the top three

Canny8 of 380Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Alchemer. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 5 of the 38 answers that named Alchemer and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

guideflow.com3

zonkafeedback.com3

g2.com2

qualaroo.com2

questionpro.com2

surveysensum.com2

webapprater.com2

aikenhouse.com1

amplitude.com1

asknicely.com1

Nineteen of the nineteen domain citations in answers naming Alchemer came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

guideflow.com/blog/customer-feedback-tools2

webapprater.com/news/top-5-customer-feedback-and-survey-analysis-web-apps-in-2026.html2

zonkafeedback.com/blog/customer-feedback-tools2

aikenhouse.com/post/the-best-software-review-platforms-in-20261

amplitude.com/compare/best-nps-software1

asknicely.com/blog/enterprise-feedback-management-buyers-guide1

birdeye.com/blog/review-management1

blog.buildbetter.ai/best-customer-feedback-analytics-platforms-ranked1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Alchemer

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Alchemer; a claim can dispute any of them.

Alchemer (formerly Alchemizer) 1Alchemer (formerly SurveyGizmo) 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

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 Alchemer'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 Alchemer, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at alchemer.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.