Small businessnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 79 of 87, unchanged
1 category · Named, not rankedCollibra Data Quality
16Judge labels
0First choices
6Negative labels
8 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
4 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Collibra Data Quality was named 4 times in CRM data quality, where Insycle led with 43%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business90 of 96
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market91 of 99
0%4 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise25 of 103
0%9 labels
under the label threshold
In crm data quality · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named Collibra Data Quality 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRM data quality and deduplication | Revenue operations | 0% | 91 of 99 | 50% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Insycle at 43% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Collibra Data Quality held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · CRM data quality · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 65 → 89 of 90
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 28 → 23 of 93
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRM data quality | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 65 → 91 of 99 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Collibra Data Quality across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Collibra Data Quality across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative5 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative11 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative16 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.
No positive label carried a quote.
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.
“great for broad data governance but can be overkill, expensive, and complex for pure CRM hygiene needs” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CRM data quality · negative prompt · soft negative
“may be overkill for small to mid-sized businesses. They can be expensive, require significant setup” Mistral Small · CRM data quality · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Collibra Data Quality, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Collibra Data Quality was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Collibra Data Quality, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Collibra Data Quality was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 Collibra Data Quality. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 15 of the 15 answers that named Collibra Data Quality and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
cleanlist.ai15
cognism.com15
integrate.io10
findymail.com9
clearout.io8
g2.com8
pipeline.zoominfo.com8
prospeo.io6
gitnux.org5
gtm-ai-index.com5
Eighty-nine of the eighty-nine domain citations in answers naming Collibra Data Quality came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
collibra.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Collibra Data Quality takes 0% of first choices and Insycle takes 43%.ShowHide
Search and answers
collibra.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Collibra Data Quality takes 0% of first choices and Insycle takes 43%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “crm data quality and deduplication tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best crm data quality and deduplication tool”
–
not in the top ten
- Organic visits to its site
- about 10,491 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 1,903 · 189 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 4,509
- Paid Google search
- 3 searches its ads show for, about 4 clicks and $48 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 91 of 99 in CRM data quality
Segment leader
43%
Insycle
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 15 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 15 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on collibra.com
5,469
subdomains included
Content
1,361
counted in the table below
Documentation
289
Product · Integration
33 · 11
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-11 to 2026-10 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 911 | undated | CRM | ||
| Conference or event | 241 | undated | |||
| Podcast or video | 59 | 2 | 2026-08-04 | ||
| News or press | 53 | undated | |||
| Case study | 41 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 33 | 0 | 2026-06-17 | ||
| Template or tool | 7 | 0 | 2026-06-30 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 6 | 1 | 2026-08-12 | ||
| Report or ebook | 5 | 0 | 2026-03-10 | ||
| Comparison | 5 | 2 | 2026-09-10 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-10Context vs control why you need both comparison
- 2026-08-12Data lineage read apis mcp server lineage on demand webinar or virtual event
- 2026-08-05Data sharing agreements vs data contracts two different promises around data comparison
- 2026-08-04Foundations for fast ai deployment in telecommunications podcast or video
- 2026-07-28From catching up to leading why ai governance must think five steps ahead podcast or video
- 2026-06-30Ai audit readiness a checklist for models agents and your first ai audit template or tool
Events in person
Last twelve months
- September 23, 2026 to September 24, 2026Big Data LDN 2026Olympia, Stand N68, London, U.K. · exhibited
As the event pages on collibra.com state them, read October 5, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page collibra.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read October 5, 2026.
Names read as Collibra Data Quality
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Collibra Data Quality; a claim can dispute any of them.
Collibra 4
Follow Collibra Data Quality
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Collibra is the company behind Collibra Data Quality.ShowHide
The company
Collibra is the company behind Collibra Data Quality.
ShowHideOn record
Wikidata- Website
- collibra.com
- Headquarters
- Belgium
- Founded
- 2008
Fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- An integrated approach to data intelligence that is built on a foundation of transparency and trust.
- Integrations claimed
- 100 collibra.com/products/integrations-apis/integrations
- Certifications
- ITARISO/IEC 27001ISO/IEC 42001ISO 9001FedRAMP ModerateHIPAAGDPR requirementsCCPA requirements
- Not stated on the pages read
- Who it is for, price, starting price, free plan or trial, hosting, customers
What Collibra Data Quality's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: collibra.com, trust.collibra.com, collibra.com/products/mcp-server, collibra.com/customer-stories, collibra.com/products/integrations-apis/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of 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 Collibra Data Quality'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 Collibra Data Quality, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Collibra Data Quality by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Collibra Data Quality is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Collibra Data Quality, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.