GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › Mentionlytics · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Mentionlytics

4Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

3 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Mentionlytics was named 2 times in PR and 1 other category, where Muck Rack led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business53 of 67

under the label threshold

Mid-market30 of 65

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In pr · 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 Mentionlytics 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
PR and media monitoring	Marketing	0%	30 of 65	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Muck Rack at 24%
Review and reputation management	Marketing	0%	72 of 103	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Birdeye at 26%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Mentionlytics 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 Mentionlytics across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

“Mentionlytics — Best for multilingual and review-heavy brands” GLM 4.7 FlashX · PR · 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 Mentionlytics, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Mentionlytics was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Brand243 of 40Not in the top three

Awario2 of 41Not in the top three

Brandwatch2 of 40Not in the top three

Cision2 of 40Not in the top three

Google Alerts2 of 40Not in the top three

Meltwater2 of 40Not in the top three

Semrush AI PR Toolkit2 of 40Not in the top three

Sprinklr2 of 40Not in the top three

Sprout Social2 of 40Not in the top three

Talkwalker2 of 40Not 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 Mentionlytics. 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 4 answers that named Mentionlytics and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

almcorp.com1

birdeye.com1

cbinsights.com1

emitrr.com1

guideflow.com1

reviewflowz.com1

reviewtrackers.com1

revuze.it1

spotsaas.com1

thecmo.com1

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

Pages cited

almcorp.com/blog/top-reputation-management-tools1

birdeye.com/alternatives/podium-alternatives1

birdeye.com/compare1

cbinsights.com/compare/birdeye-vs-repdrive1

emitrr.com/blog/podium-alternative1

guideflow.com/blog/online-reputation-management-tools1

reviewflowz.com/blog/top-10-birdeye-alternatives1

reviewtrackers.com/lp/compare-reviewtrackers-vs-birdeye1

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 Mentionlytics'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 Mentionlytics, 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 mention.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.