Every category where a model named Canny 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
Customer feedback and surveys	Customer	2%	11 of 104	0%	15	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Canny 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 Canny 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	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	0	1
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

Direct4 labels1

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained8 labelsNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative35 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“For most mid-market B2B companies, Canny offers the best balance of features, pricing, and ease of use.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Feedback · direct prompt · first choice

“Bridges feedback directly to product roadmap prioritization with revenue impact data” Kimi K2 · Feedback · comparative prompt · alternative

“Public feature requests & roadmap \u2192 Canny / Productboard / UserVoice” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Feedback · comparative prompt · alternative

“Choose Canny if your main need is feature requests and user voting” Perplexity Sonar · Feedback · budget 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 Canny, over the 35 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Canny was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Typeform28 of 355Not in the top three

SurveyMonkey26 of 353Not in the top three

Survicate22 of 356Not in the top three

Qualtrics22 of 355Not in the top three

Google Forms20 of 356Not in the top three

Medallia17 of 351Not in the top three

Hotjar16 of 351Not in the top three

Jotform13 of 352Not in the top three

UserVoice12 of 350Not in the top three

Delighted11 of 350Not 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 Canny. 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 6 of the 35 answers that named Canny and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

guideflow.com5

typeform.com5

softwaretestinghelp.com4

zonkafeedback.com4

blog.hubspot.com3

featurebase.app3

featureupvote.com3

greatquestion.co3

proprofssurvey.com3

qualaroo.com3

Thirty-six of the thirty-six domain citations in answers naming Canny came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

guideflow.com/blog/customer-feedback-tools5

typeform.com/blog/customer-feedback-tools5

softwaretestinghelp.com/best-customer-feedback-software4

zonkafeedback.com/blog/customer-feedback-tools4

blog.hubspot.com/service/customer-feedback-tool3

featurebase.app/blog/customer-feedback-tools3

featureupvote.com/blog/customer-feedback-tools3

greatquestion.co/blog/customer-feedback-tools3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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 Canny'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 Canny, 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 canny.io 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.