Every category where a model named Metadata.io 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
Search and social advertising platforms	Marketing	5%	7 of 137	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by Google Ads at 10%
Account-based marketing platforms	Marketing	0%	28 of 76	17%	6	under 10 labels · led by AdRoll ABM at 56%
Programmatic and display advertising	Marketing	0%	36 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 Metadata.io 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 Metadata.io 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	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	1	0	0	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	0	0	2
Mistral Small	0	2	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	2	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	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

Direct11 labels3

Paraphrase6 labels2

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative29 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 5 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.

“The Modern Gold Standard for B2B Ad Automation: Metadata.io ... is the market leader” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Paid ads · direct prompt · first choice

“Best Overall for Paid Social, ABM, and Lead-to-Revenue Automation: Metadata.io” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Paid ads · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“the best choice is usually Metadata” GPT-5.4 mini · Paid ads · direct prompt · first choice

“Alternative: If you're primarily focused on LinkedIn advertising (common for B2B), Metadata.io would be an excellent specialized choice.” Mistral Small · Paid ads · paraphrase 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.

“cost $60K\u2013200K+ per year and are usually overkill for limited budgets” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ABM · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

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

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Demandbase20 of 293Not in the top three

6sense18 of 292Not in the top three

AdRoll ABM16 of 293Not in the top three

Terminus10 of 292Not in the top three

Optmyzr9 of 291Not in the top three

Skai7 of 293Not in the top three

HubSpot ABM7 of 291Not in the top three

Influ27 of 290Not in the top three

LinkedIn Campaign Manager6 of 291Not in the top three

Apollo.io5 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 Metadata.io. 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 2 of the 29 answers that named Metadata.io and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

almcorp.com1

beomniscient.com1

capterra.com1

clicksgeek.com1

cometly.com1

connectform.co1

demandbase.com1

directiveconsulting.com1

fueler.io1

g2.com1

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

Pages cited

almcorp.com/blog/ppc-management-software-list1

beomniscient.com/blog/b2b-ppc-agency1

capterra.com/p/10039388/Pace1

capterra.com/p/156308/Optmyzr1

clicksgeek.com/paid-advertising-for-b2b-companies1

clicksgeek.com/paid-search-management-service1

clicksgeek.com/paid-search-management-services1

cometly.com/post/multi-platform-ad-management1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Metadata.io

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

Metadata 3

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 Metadata.io'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 Metadata.io, 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 metadata.io 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.