Every category where a model named Birdeye 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	26%	1 of 103	22%	49	accepted challenger
Channel partner and local marketing	Partner and channel	4%	9 of 108	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by JourneyBee at 15%
Loyalty, advocacy and referrals	Marketing	0%	37 of 124	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Smile.io at 24%
Customer feedback and surveys	Customer	0%	74 of 104	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Google Forms at 15%
Ecommerce marketing	Marketing	0%	117 of 154	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Marketing Hub at 36%
Referral and partner programs	Partner and channel	0%	99 of 107	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by PartnerStack at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Birdeye 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 Birdeye 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	2	1	1	1	5
GPT-5.4 mini	1	1	1	0	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	1	1	2	5
Perplexity Sonar	3	0	0	0	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	2	1	2	2	7
Mistral Small	2	0	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	3	1	0	3	7
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	3	0	4
Qwen 3.7 Flash	2	2	1	1	6
Kimi K2	2	1	2	2	7
GLM 4.7 FlashX	3	1	1	2	7
MiniMax M2.5	2	2	1	0	5

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

Direct28 labels11

Paraphrase39 labels15

Comparative43 labels21not counted in share

Budget-constrained23 labels4

Scale-constrained20 labels6

Negative33 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative186 labels in all, every segment counted; 36 of the 58 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.

“I'd recommend Birdeye if you want the strongest all-around platform for reviews, listings, and automated reputation workflows” Perplexity Sonar · Reviews · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Choose Birdeye if you need a broad platform for many locations and want reviews, listings, and response workflows together.” Perplexity Sonar · Reviews · comparative prompt · first choice

“1. Birdeye - Best for Multi-Location Businesses ... Strengths: All-in-one platform for local business reputation management” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Reviews · comparative prompt · first choice

“Top Tier Platforms (Comprehensive & Enterprise) ... 1. Birdeye ... Best For: Multi-location enterprises, franchises” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Reviews · comparative prompt · first choice

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.

“Users report "constant crashes every 5 minutes," "takes forever to create profiles," and "slow setup."” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Referrals · negative prompt · hard negative

“What to Avoid on a Budget - Birdeye ($299+/month) ... overkill for limited budgets” Kimi K2 · Reviews · budget prompt · hard negative

“Avoid Birdeye and Reputation.com unless you have many physical locations” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · paraphrase prompt · hard negative

“This is perhaps the most consistently flagged platform for predatory practices.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Birdeye, over the 186 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Birdeye was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Reputation100 of 1869Not in the top three

Podium99 of 1860Not in the top three

NiceJob56 of 18618Not in the top three

ReviewTrackers52 of 1867Compare →

Trustpilot41 of 1860Not in the top three

BrightLocal37 of 1864Not in the top three

SOCi35 of 1863Not in the top three

Yext35 of 1860Not in the top three

Reviewflowz32 of 18612Compare →

ReviewGrower30 of 1868Not 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 Birdeye. 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 36 of the 186 answers that named Birdeye and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

birdeye.comYour site19

usa.inquirer.net18

g2.com17

appfollow.io16

guideflow.com15

learn.g2.com13

thecmo.com12

almcorp.com10

embedsocial.com7

feedbackrobot.com7

115 of the 134 domain citations in answers naming Birdeye came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

usa.inquirer.net/191823/best-reputation-management-software18

appfollow.io/blog/reputation-management-software16

learn.g2.com/best-online-reputation-management-tools11

thecmo.com/tools/best-reputation-management-software11

almcorp.com/blog/top-reputation-management-tools10

learn.g2.com/best-review-management-software10

guideflow.com/blog/online-reputation-management-tools8

birdeye.com/blog/enterprise-reputation-management-software7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Birdeye

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

BirdEye 1Birdeye/Trustpilot 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 Birdeye'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 Birdeye, 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 birdeye.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.