Index › Vendors › ironSource · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

ironSource

10Judge labels

0First choices

4Negative labels

6 of 12Models named it

2Categories

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

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ironSource was named 5 times in Mobile apps and 1 other category, where Meta Advantage+ App Campaigns led with 15%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business134 of 139

under the label threshold

Mid-market112 of 136

under the label threshold

Enterprise36 of 95

under the label threshold

In mobile apps · 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 ironSource 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
Mobile apps	Marketing	0%	112 of 136	25%	4	under 10 labels · led by Meta Advantage+ App Campaigns at 15%
Programmatic and display advertising	Marketing	0%	43 of 96	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by StackAdapt at 61%

Movement

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

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative10 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.

“ironSource non-incent inventory) are generally safe if you integrate independent MMP fraud detection” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Mobile apps · negative prompt · alternative

“ironSource (consistent filtering)” Mistral Small · Programmatic · 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.

“What to Avoid on a Budget - (AppLovin, IronSource, Unity Ads) - require $10K+/month minimum” Mistral Small · Mobile apps · budget prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ironSource, over the 10 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ironSource was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

AppLovin8 of 100Not in the top three

AppsFlyer7 of 101Not in the top three

Apple Search Ads6 of 104Not in the top three

Google App Campaigns5 of 102Not in the top three

Meta Advantage+ App Campaigns5 of 102Not in the top three

Adjust5 of 101Not in the top three

Branch5 of 100Not in the top three

OneSignal5 of 100Not in the top three

TikTok Ads5 of 100Not in the top three

Braze4 of 101Not 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 ironSource. 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 10 answers that named ironSource and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

adlibrary.com1

businessofapps.com1

f6s.com1

g2.com1

gartner.com1

gitnux.org1

guideflow.com1

improvado.io1

insiderone.com1

knock.app1

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

Pages cited

adlibrary.com/posts/best-mobile-advertising-apps1

businessofapps.com/marketplace/marketing-automation1

f6s.com/software/category/mobile-app-marketing1

g2.com/categories/mobile-marketing/enterprise1

gartner.com/reviews/market/mobile-marketing-platforms1

gitnux.org/best/mobile-app-marketing-software1

guideflow.com/blog/best-mobile-marketing-software1

improvado.io/blog/top-enterprise-marketing-platforms1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ironSource

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

IronSource 1

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 ironSource'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 ironSource, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.