Every category where a model named Collibra 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
Data management platforms	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	35 of 183	11%	9	under 10 labels · led by Segment at 18%

Movement

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative20 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative12 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative33 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 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.

“Safer Bets: Look at highly rated ones like Collibra, Informatica, or Databricks (strong governance/lineage)” Grok 4.1 Fast · DMP · negative prompt · alternative

“Governance / catalog / compliance: Collibra or Microsoft Purview.” Perplexity Sonar · DMP · comparative prompt · alternative

“Governance/catalog: Microsoft Purview, Collibra, Atlan” DeepSeek V4 Flash · DMP · comparative prompt · alternative

“Strong governance and business process alignment.” GPT-5.4 mini · DMP · comparative 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.

“resource-intensive, complex to implement, and carries real vendor lock-in risk” DeepSeek V4 Flash · DMP · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Collibra, over the 33 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Collibra was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Alation22 of 330Not in the top three

Snowflake21 of 337Not in the top three

BigQuery19 of 333Not in the top three

Databricks17 of 335Not in the top three

Fivetran17 of 331Not in the top three

Microsoft Purview14 of 330Not in the top three

Informatica IDMC11 of 331Not in the top three

Atlan10 of 330Not in the top three

Talend10 of 330Not in the top three

dbt10 of 330Not 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 Collibra. 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 9 of the 33 answers that named Collibra and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

fortegrp.com6

improvado.io5

matillion.com5

domo.com4

gitnux.org4

alation.com3

estuary.dev3

g2.com3

gartner.com3

integrate.io3

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

Pages cited

fortegrp.com/insights/top-19-data-management-tools-platforms-in-the-usa6

matillion.com/learn/blog/data-management-platforms5

domo.com/learn/article/best-data-management-platforms4

alation.com/blog/data-management-software3

estuary.dev/blog/data-management-tools3

gartner.com/reviews/market/data-management-platforms3

improvado.io/blog/data-governance-tools3

improvado.io/blog/enterprise-data-management-tools3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

The company

Collibra.

Website: collibra.com
Headquarters: Belgium
Founded: 2008

From Wikidata, fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata

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'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, 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 collibra.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.