Every category where a model named Meta Ads 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 advertising	Marketing	11%	4 of 121	4%	28	accepted challenger
Search and social advertising platforms	Marketing	5%	5 of 137	5%	20	accepted challenger
Programmatic and display advertising	Marketing	0%	68 of 96	50%	6	under 10 labels · led by StackAdapt at 61%
Mobile apps	Marketing	0%	26 of 136	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Meta Advantage+ App Campaigns at 15%
Ecommerce marketing	Marketing	0%	29 of 154	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Marketing Hub at 36%
Retail, proximity and IoT marketing	Marketing	0%	62 of 131	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Radar at 19%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	2	1	0	4
GPT-5.4 mini	0	3	1	0	4
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	3	4	0	8
Perplexity Sonar	1	2	0	0	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	3	2	0	6
Mistral Small	4	0	1	0	5
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	2	0	5
Llama 4 Maverick	0	2	1	1	4
Qwen 3.7 Flash	2	3	2	1	8
Kimi K2	1	0	1	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	3	2	0	1	6
MiniMax M2.5	2	1	2	2	7

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

Direct19 labels1

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative42 labels13not counted in share

Budget-constrained42 labels16

Scale-constrained10 labels5

Negative54 labels15not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative171 labels in all, every segment counted; 22 of the 50 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.

“Meta (Facebook & Instagram) and TikTok offer the best combination of low entry costs and high return on investment for most small businesses.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Video ads · budget prompt · first choice

“Meta (Facebook/Instagram) | Performance, e-commerce | Strong engagement, built-in creative tools, excellent for short-form video” MiniMax M2.5 · Video ads · comparative prompt · first choice

“Start with native platforms: Meta Ads Manager and Google Ads Smart Campaigns are free and sufficient for most small businesses” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Paid ads · budget prompt · first choice

“What to do instead: Run your retargeting campaigns directly inside Meta Ads Manager and Google Display Network (GDN).” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Ecommerce marketing · negative 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.

“Significant fraud problem: ... Meta earns approximately 10% of its revenue (~$16 billion) from scam ads” MiniMax M2.5 · Video ads · negative prompt · hard negative

“Walled gardens (e.g., Google, Meta) that trade transparency for closed-loop reach—you can't independently validate their inventory” MiniMax M2.5 · Programmatic · negative prompt · soft negative

“Walled Gardens ... Tradeoff: Trade transparency for closed-loop reach and proprietary audiences” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Programmatic · negative prompt · soft negative

“Walled gardens like Google and Meta ... they may have limitations in terms of transparency and control.” Llama 4 Maverick · Paid ads · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Meta Ads, over the 170 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Meta Ads was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

TikTok Ads81 of 1703Not in the top three

Google Ads74 of 1707Not in the top three

YouTube Ads59 of 17015Not in the top three

LinkedIn Campaign Manager41 of 1707Not in the top three

The Trade Desk40 of 1705Not in the top three

StackAdapt31 of 1704Not in the top three

Vibe.co28 of 1703Not in the top three

Optmyzr27 of 1705Not in the top three

AdEspresso26 of 1703Not in the top three

Skai22 of 1704Not 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 Meta Ads. 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 22 of the 170 answers that named Meta Ads and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

clicksgeek.com7

indiemedia.club7

support.google.com7

g2.com6

get-ryze.ai6

guideflow.com5

madgicx.com5

vibe.co5

zipdo.co5

fueler.io4

Fifty-seven of the fifty-seven domain citations in answers naming Meta Ads came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

vibe.co/blog/how-to/video-advertising-platforms5

indiemedia.club/tools/best-video-advertising-networks4

influencermarketinghub.com/video-advertising/video-ad-platforms4

adwave.com/resources/video-marketing-for-small-business3

clicksgeek.com/best-paid-advertising-platforms-for-small-business3

clicksgeek.com/paid-search-management-service3

get-ryze.ai/blog/best-ai-ad-management-platform3

guideflow.com/blog/video-advertising-software3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Meta Ads

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

Meta Ads Manager 19Meta (Facebook/Instagram) 5Meta 4Facebook 2Meta (Facebook & Instagram) 2Meta (Facebook + Instagram) 2Meta Ads (Facebook/Instagram) 2Facebook/Instagram Ads 1Facebook/Instagram Reels 1Facebook/Meta 1Facebook/Meta Audience Network 1Instagram 1Instagram Ads 1Meta & TikTok for Business 1Meta (FB/IG Reels) 1Meta (Facebook + Instagram Video & Reels) 1Meta (Instagram & Facebook) 1Meta Ads (Facebook & Instagram Reels) 1Meta Ads (Facebook & Instagram) 1Meta Ads (Instagram & Facebook) 1Meta Ads (Instagram/Facebook) & Google App Campaigns 1Meta Ads / Meta Advantage+ App Campaigns 1Meta Ads Manager (Facebook + Instagram) 1Meta Ads Manager / Advantage+ 1

The company

Meta Platforms is the company behind Meta Ads.

Website: meta.com
Headquarters: Menlo Park, United States
Founded: 2004
Employees: about 58,604 (2020)
Ownership: Public, META on Nasdaq

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 · LinkedIn · Crunchbase

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 Meta Ads'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 Meta Ads, 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 meta.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.