Every category where a model named Loom 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
Video marketing and hosting	Marketing	0%	10 of 56	17%	12	accepted challenger
Video advertising	Marketing	0%	35 of 121	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by StackAdapt at 24%
Sales enablement and content	Sales	0%	51 of 81	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Dock at 19%
Webinar and virtual event platforms	Marketing	0%	48 of 71	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Livestorm at 23%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Loom 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 Loom 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	2	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	1	1	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	3	0	3
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	2	0	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	0	2
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	0	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

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained9 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative29 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.

“For video marketing, Loom is a premier choice, starting completely free.” Llama 4 Maverick · Video ads · budget prompt · alternative

“Loom is great for fast screen recording and async team communication” Llama 4 Maverick · Video hosting · comparative prompt · alternative

“excellent for quick, direct-to-consumer messages or simple demos” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Video hosting · budget prompt · alternative

“Offers a free plan (up to 25 videos)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Sales enablement · 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.

“Tools like Loom, Vidyard (free tier), or Descript ... they should be avoided for public-facing marketing landing pages.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Video hosting · negative prompt · hard negative

“useful for internal async communication, but not a strong choice for external marketing hosting” Perplexity Sonar · Video hosting · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Loom, over the 29 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Loom was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Wistia20 of 2915Not in the top three

YouTube18 of 297Not in the top three

Vimeo18 of 295Not in the top three

Vidyard17 of 292Not in the top three

Gumlet9 of 290Not in the top three

SproutVideo9 of 290Not in the top three

Brightcove7 of 290Not in the top three

Cloudflare Stream5 of 290Not in the top three

Dailymotion5 of 290Not in the top three

Mux4 of 290Not 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 Loom. 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 29 answers that named Loom and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cloudinary.com1

cxl.com1

dacast.com1

fast.io1

fourthwall.com1

gumlet.com1

ignite.video1

knowlify.com1

moonb.io1

moz.com1

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

Pages cited

cloudinary.com/guides/video/best-video-hosting-platforms1

cxl.com/blog/video-hosting-platforms1

dacast.com/blog/streaming-video-hosting-services1

fast.io/resources/video-hosting-platforms1

fourthwall.com/blog/13-best-youtube-alternatives-to-stream1

gumlet.com/learn/video-hosting-platforms-marketing-teams1

ignite.video/en/articles/basics/video-hosting-providers-for-businesses-compared1

knowlify.com/articles/best-video-hosting-platforms1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

The company

Loom.

Website: loom.com

From Wikidata, fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata

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 Loom'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 Loom, 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 loom.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.