Index › Products › Feedly · October 2026 Edition

3 categories · Named, not ranked

Feedly

20Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

8 / 14Models named it

3Categories

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, 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. Feedly was named 7 times in Competitive intel and 2 other categories, where Kompyte led with 38%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business22 of 85

under the label threshold

Mid-market19 of 86

under the label threshold

Enterprise50 of 53

under the label threshold

In competitive intel · 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 Feedly 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
Competitive intelligence tools	Marketing	0%	19 of 86	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Kompyte at 38%
Market intelligence platforms	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	49 of 172	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Apollo.io at 17%
PR and media monitoring	Marketing	0%	23 of 47	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Muck Rack at 30%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Feedly yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Feedly across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	2
Kimi K2	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained8 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 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.

“Feedly for news monitoring, which can be used together for a total cost of around $300-$1,000/year” Llama 4 Maverick · Competitive intel · budget prompt · alternative

“Start simple: Use free/public tools first (Google, Feedly) before paid CI platforms.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Competitive intel · negative prompt · alternative

“Aggregate competitor blogs, podcasts, and social posts into one dashboard” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Competitive intel · budget prompt · alternative

“Industry news & trends | Feedly Pro+ | ~$18/month” Kimi K2 · Market intelligence · 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 Feedly, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Feedly was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Semrush15 of 202Not among the top eight

Visualping13 of 203Not among the top eight

Similarweb12 of 201Not among the top eight

Crayon12 of 200Not among the top eight

Klue12 of 200Not among the top eight

Kompyte11 of 205Not among the top eight

Google Alerts11 of 200Not among the top eight

Ahrefs8 of 200Not among the top eight

AlphaSense7 of 201Not among the top eight

Contify6 of 201Not among the top eight

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 Feedly. 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 17 of the 20 answers that named Feedly and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com8

pipeline.zoominfo.com8

prospeo.io8

contify.com7

guideflow.com7

improvado.io7

linkeddit.com7

unkover.com7

thecmo.com6

blog.hootsuite.com5

No domain is on file for Feedly, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

improvado.io/blog/32-best-competitive-intelligence-companies7

unkover.com/blog/competitive-intelligence-tools7

pipeline.zoominfo.com/sales/competitive-intelligence-software6

prospeo.io/s/best-competitive-intelligence-tools5

aiclicks.io/blog/best-competitive-intelligence-tools4

blog.hootsuite.com/competitive-intelligence-software4

cloro.dev/blog/best-competitive-intelligence-tools4

contify.com/resources/blog/best-competitive-intelligence-tools4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Feedly

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Feedly; a claim can dispute any of them.

Feedly Pro+ 1Google Alerts + Feedly 1

Follow Feedly

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.

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 Feedly'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 Feedly, 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 Feedly by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Feedly 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 Feedly, 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.