Google Analytics 4

Named in 34 judge labels across 3 categories by 6 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 4 first choices, 15 negative labels. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Best standing

15% in Attribution & MMM

Rank 4 of 82 products named in attribution and marketing mix modeling, criticized challenger. 0 of 6 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 43% of its 14 labels there were negative.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Google Analytics 4. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Vertical	First choices	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Attribution and marketing mix modeling	Marketing	15%	4 of 82	43%	14	criticized challenger
Product analytics	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	32 of 32	56%	16	criticized challenger
SEO and content optimization platforms	Marketing	0%	16 of 45	0%	4	under 10 labels

By model

How each model treated Google Analytics 4 across every prompt where it was named. Six models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Opus 5	0	1	5	1	7
Claude Opus 4.8	1	1	2	2	6
GPT-6 Astra	1	0	1	2	4
GPT-5.6 Sol	1	2	0	3	6
Gemini 3.1 Pro	0	0	2	3	5
Perplexity Sonar Pro	1	1	0	4	6

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“starting with GA4 (free) for touchpoint-level attribution, and layering in an open-source MMM” Claude Opus 4.8 · Attribution & MMM · budget prompt · first choice

“my default recommendation is Google Analytics 4 for attribution” GPT-6 Astra · Attribution & MMM · budget prompt · first choice

“My default recommendation is GA4 + Meridian.” GPT-5.6 Sol · Attribution & MMM · budget prompt · first choice

“GA4 is the best budget choice” Perplexity Sonar Pro · Attribution & MMM · budget prompt · first choice

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.

“I'd avoid this for actual product analytics (as opposed to marketing attribution). Data sampling and cardinality thresholding make funnel and retention numbers unreliable” Claude Opus 5 · Product analytics · negative prompt · hard negative

“it remains a massive GDPR liability ... The compliance overhead is rarely worth it for product teams.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Product analytics · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid using attribution reports alone as the final authority for cross-channel investment.” GPT-6 Astra · Attribution & MMM · negative prompt · hard negative

“I’d avoid relying on it alone if detailed analysis beyond that window is essential” GPT-6 Astra · Product analytics · negative prompt · hard negative

Names read as Google Analytics 4

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Google Analytics 4; a claim can dispute any of them.

Google Analytics 4 (GA4) 7GA4 6Google Analytics 4Google Analytics / GA4 1Google Analytics 4 (GA4) Data-Driven Attribution 1Google Analytics 4 / Google Ads attribution 1Google Analytics 4, standard 1Google Analytics/Firebase 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page gets a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Google Analytics 4, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a logo and one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or quadrants, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. Sponsorship is separate: a sponsor funds categories or buyer dimensions and is named on what it funded, and the rules are the same for every sponsor.