Every category where a model named Chameleon 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
Digital adoption and onboarding	Customer	0%	12 of 58	7%	15	accepted challenger
In-app messaging and customer communications	Customer	0%	26 of 113	21%	14	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	0	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	2	0	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	0	2
Mistral Small	0	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	3	1	0	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	2	3	1	6
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	2	1	1	4

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

Direct10 labelsNone

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative22 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained10 labels1

Negative11 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative63 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

“Modern, sleek interface. Good for B2B SaaS. Strong customization and A/B testing capabilities.” MiniMax M2.5 · Digital adoption · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Chameleon or Appcues if your team wants a more focused in-app onboarding tool” Perplexity Sonar · Digital adoption · direct prompt · alternative

“*Top Mid-Market Contenders:* Userflow, Appcues, Userpilot, or Chameleon.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Digital adoption · scale prompt · alternative

“Choose Chameleon if: Pixel-perfect design ... is non-negotiable” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Digital adoption · 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.

“$279/month (2,000 MTU) | More advanced UI patterns (higher budget)” Kimi K2 · Digital adoption · budget prompt · soft negative

“requires frontend dev and has a steep learning curve” Llama 4 Maverick · In-app messaging · negative prompt · soft negative

“Requires frontend dev; steep learning curve” Mistral Small · In-app messaging · comparative prompt · soft negative

“Limited customization beyond basic styling” MiniMax M2.5 · In-app messaging · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Chameleon, over the 63 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Chameleon was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Appcues52 of 632Not in the top three

Userpilot49 of 6310Not in the top three

Pendo42 of 635Not in the top three

UserGuiding38 of 637Not in the top three

WalkMe27 of 636Not in the top three

Whatfix27 of 636Not in the top three

Intercom24 of 635Not in the top three

Braze21 of 634Not in the top three

OneSignal19 of 631Not in the top three

Apty15 of 631Not 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 Chameleon. 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 8 of the 63 answers that named Chameleon and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

userpilot.com8

chameleon.ioYour site4

guideflow.com4

hellyeahai.com4

knock.app4

productfruits.com4

dupple.com3

learn.g2.com3

pushwoosh.com3

twixor.ai3

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

Pages cited

userpilot.com/blog/in-app-messaging-tools5

hellyeahai.com/blog/best-in-app-messaging-platform4

knock.app/blog/the-top-in-app-messaging-tools4

productfruits.com/blog/best-in-app-messaging-platforms4

dupple.com/learn/best-in-app-messaging-tools3

guideflow.com/blog/in-app-messaging-software3

pushwoosh.com/blog/best-in-app-messaging-platforms3

twixor.ai/blog/in-app-messaging-software3

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 Chameleon'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 Chameleon, 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 chameleon.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.