Every category where a model named BrightLocal 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
Channel partner and local marketing	Partner and channel	2%	13 of 108	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by JourneyBee at 15%
Review and reputation management	Marketing	0%	22 of 103	0%	14	accepted challenger
Retail, proximity and IoT marketing	Marketing	0%	44 of 131	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Radar at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for BrightLocal 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 BrightLocal across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	2	3
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	3	1	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	2	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase15 labels5

Comparative12 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained10 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative11 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative51 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 7 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.

“BrightLocal (Essential companion tool)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Channel marketing · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“BrightLocal is the industry standard ... If you only need to look at reviews, it is too complex.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Reviews · budget prompt · alternative

“Reputable platforms: Birdeye, Podium, ReviewTrackers, NiceJob, GatherUp, BrightLocal” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Reviews · negative prompt · alternative

“Best value and great reporting/rank tracking; ideal if you manage local SEO actively” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Channel marketing · paraphrase 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as BrightLocal, over the 51 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BrightLocal was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Birdeye37 of 516Not in the top three

Podium31 of 511Not in the top three

NiceJob29 of 517Not in the top three

GatherUp18 of 511Not in the top three

Reputation18 of 511Not in the top three

ReviewGrower13 of 515Not in the top three

Google Business Profile13 of 512Not in the top three

Yext13 of 510Not in the top three

ReviewTrackers11 of 510Not in the top three

Reviewflowz10 of 513Not 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 BrightLocal. 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 3 of the 51 answers that named BrightLocal and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appfollow.io2

thecmo.com2

usa.inquirer.net2

almcorp.com1

birdeye.com1

brightlocal.comYour site1

embedsocial.com1

gartner.com1

gbppromote.com1

learn.g2.com1

Twelve of the thirteen domain citations in answers naming BrightLocal came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

appfollow.io/blog/reputation-management-software2

thecmo.com/tools/best-reputation-management-software2

usa.inquirer.net/191823/best-reputation-management-software2

almcorp.com/blog/top-reputation-management-tools1

appfollow.io/blog/review-management-software1

birdeye.com/blog/enterprise-reputation-management-software1

birdeye.com/blog/online-reputation-management-tools1

birdeye.com/tools1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as BrightLocal

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

BrightLocal (Grow Plan) 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 BrightLocal'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 BrightLocal, 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 brightlocal.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.