Every category where a model named Complianz 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
Consent and privacy management	GTM data and infrastructure	4%	8 of 39	0%	13	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Complianz 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 Complianz 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	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	1	1	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labels1

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained17 labels3

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative36 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 4 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.

“If I had to pick one budget-friendly default, I'd say Complianz for WordPress” GPT-5.4 mini · Consent · budget prompt · first choice

“CookieScript or Complianz free plans are typically the best starting points.” MiniMax M2.5 · Consent · budget prompt · first choice

“If you're on WordPress and want the lowest recurring cost, consider Complianz (~$59/year).” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Consent · budget prompt · alternative

“Other options include CookieScript, Complianz, and Termly, which offer flexible pricing plans” Llama 4 Maverick · Consent · 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 Complianz, over the 36 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Complianz was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CookieYes32 of 3619Not in the top three

Termly26 of 365Not in the top three

Cookiebot25 of 362Not in the top three

OneTrust19 of 362Not in the top three

iubenda17 of 362Not in the top three

Osano15 of 360Not in the top three

CookieScript13 of 360Not in the top three

Enzuzo11 of 360Not in the top three

TrustArc10 of 360Not in the top three

Usercentrics10 of 360Not 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 Complianz. 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 7 of the 36 answers that named Complianz and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

enzuzo.com6

elementor.com5

expertinsights.com5

osano.com5

comparitech.com4

cookieyes.com4

designrush.com4

didomi.io4

iubenda.com4

ketch.com4

Forty-five of the forty-five domain citations in answers naming Complianz came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

enzuzo.com/blog/best-consent-management-platforms5

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-consent-management-solutions5

osano.com/comparison/consent-management-platform5

comparitech.com/data-privacy-management/best-consent-management-platforms4

designrush.com/agency/it-services/trends/best-consent-management-platforms4

didomi.io/blog/top-10-best-consent-management-platforms-cmp4

elementor.com/blog/consent-management-small4

ketch.com/blog/posts/consent-management-platforms4

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 Complianz'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 Complianz, 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 complianz.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.