GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › Eppo · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Eppo

19Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

8 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

8 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Eppo was named 8 times in Experimentation, where VWO led with 34%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business31 of 91

under the label threshold

Mid-market19 of 69

under the label threshold

Enterprise13 of 53

under the label threshold

In experimentation · 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 Eppo 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
Experimentation and personalization	Marketing	0%	19 of 69	12%	8	under 10 labels · led by VWO at 34%

Movement

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative19 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.

“Statsig / Eppo / GrowthBook — developer-first, warehouse-native” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Experimentation · scale prompt · alternative

“Strict warehouse-native analytics engineering → Eppo” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Experimentation · comparative prompt · alternative

“Eppo - Modern experimentation platform with proper holdouts” Mistral Small · Experimentation · negative prompt · alternative

“opt for warehouse-native tools like GrowthBook or Eppo” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Experimentation · 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 free tier ($15K–$87K/year); requires mature data team; overkill for smaller teams” Kimi K2 · Experimentation · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Eppo, over the 19 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Eppo was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Optimizely CMS19 of 198Not in the top three

GrowthBook18 of 193Not in the top three

VWO18 of 192Not in the top three

Adobe Target18 of 191Not in the top three

Statsig18 of 191Not in the top three

AB Tasty15 of 190Not in the top three

Kameleoon14 of 191Not in the top three

Dynamic Yield12 of 191Not in the top three

LaunchDarkly12 of 190Not in the top three

Convert9 of 191Not 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 Eppo. 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 1 of the 19 answers that named Eppo and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

abtesting.cc1

acceleroi.com1

alphonsolabs.com1

awa-digital.com1

fibr.ai1

gitnux.org1

growthbook.io1

guideflow.com1

hellyeahai.com1

kameleoon.com1

Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming Eppo came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

abtesting.cc/blog/best-experimentation-platforms1

acceleroi.com/blog/ai-experimentation-platforms1

alphonsolabs.com/best-ab-testing-tools-20261

awa-digital.com/full-stack-experimentation-platform-comparison1

fibr.ai/ab-testing/a-b-testing-vendors1

gitnux.org/best/experiment-software1

gitnux.org/best/experimentation-software1

growthbook.io/insights/best-ab-testing-tools-product-analytics1

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 Eppo'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 Eppo, 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 eppo.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.