GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › Critical Mention · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Critical Mention

13Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

6 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Critical Mention was named 7 times in PR, where Muck Rack led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business62 of 67

under the label threshold

Mid-market16 of 65

under the label threshold

Enterprise27 of 42

under the label threshold

In pr · 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 Critical Mention 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
PR and media monitoring	Marketing	0%	16 of 65	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Muck Rack at 24%

Movement

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

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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative5 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 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.

“If broadcast monitoring is important, add Critical Mention to your evaluation.” MiniMax M2.5 · PR · direct prompt · alternative

“Broadcast/TV focus | Critical Mention | Custom” Kimi K2 · PR · negative 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 Critical Mention, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Critical Mention was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Meltwater12 of 130Not in the top three

Brand2411 of 136Not in the top three

Cision11 of 130Not in the top three

Muck Rack10 of 131Not in the top three

Brandwatch8 of 130Not in the top three

Agility PR Solutions7 of 131Not in the top three

Mention7 of 131Not in the top three

Semrush AI PR Toolkit7 of 131Not in the top three

TVEyes7 of 130Not in the top three

Onclusive6 of 130Not 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 Critical Mention. 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 2 of the 13 answers that named Critical Mention and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com2

learn.g2.com2

agilitypr.com1

blog.hootsuite.com1

delve.news1

guideflow.com1

mycommsglobal.com1

newsdata.io1

octolens.com1

prlab.co1

Twelve of the twelve domain citations in answers naming Critical Mention came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

learn.g2.com/best-media-monitoring-software2

agilitypr.com/pr-news/agility-news-reports/best-media-monitoring-tools1

blog.hootsuite.com/social-media-monitoring-tools1

delve.news/post/best-media-monitoring-tools-pr-agencies1

g2.com/categories/media-monitoring1

g2.com/compare/cisionone-vs-notified-pr-platform1

guideflow.com/blog/media-monitoring-software1

mycommsglobal.com/post/top-10-media-monitoring-tools-of-2026-pr-pros-must-know1

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 Critical Mention'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 Critical Mention, 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 criticalmention.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.