Every category where a model named Microsoft Bookings 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
Meeting scheduling	Sales	0%	13 of 77	29%	14	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Microsoft Bookings 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 Microsoft Bookings 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	2	0	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	1	2
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1	2
Kimi K2	1	0	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	2
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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase5 labels3

Comparative17 labelsNone

Budget-constrained9 labels2

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative12 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative48 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 6 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.

“Microsoft Bookings if you want the simplest option inside the productivity suite you already use” Perplexity Sonar · Scheduling · comparative prompt · alternative

“| Microsoft Bookings | M365 shops, compliance | Included | Less sales-specific |” Grok 4.1 Fast · Scheduling · scale prompt · alternative

“Best for: Organizations fully entrenched in the Microsoft 365 ecosystem.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Scheduling · comparative prompt · alternative

“Pick Microsoft Bookings if your company lives in Microsoft 365.” GPT-5.4 mini · Scheduling · comparative 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.

“it has notable vulnerabilities: Input validation flaws ... allows HTML injection” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Scheduling · negative prompt · hard negative

“Medium Concern: Tools with Notable Issues ... HTML injection vulnerability” Kimi K2 · Scheduling · negative prompt · soft negative

“Microsoft Bookings free tiers): Lack BAAs, full encryption, audit logs.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Scheduling · negative prompt · soft negative

“Lacks advanced sales-specific routing features.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Scheduling · scale prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Microsoft Bookings, over the 48 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Microsoft Bookings was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Calendly45 of 4828Not in the top three

Cal.com28 of 487Not in the top three

Chili Piper26 of 484Not in the top three

Doodle22 of 480Not in the top three

HubSpot Meetings18 of 480Not in the top three

Acuity Scheduling14 of 480Not in the top three

SavvyCal12 of 480Not in the top three

OnceHub7 of 480Not in the top three

Google Calendar6 of 480Not in the top three

RevenueHero6 of 480Not 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 Microsoft Bookings. 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 7 of the 48 answers that named Microsoft Bookings and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

learn.microsoft.comYour site4

calendly.com3

youcanbook.me3

doodle.com2

workspace.google.com2

zapier.com2

blog.hubspot.com1

blumint.co1

cal.com1

chilipiper.com1

Sixteen of the twenty domain citations in answers naming Microsoft Bookings came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/bookings2

workspace.google.com/products/calendar2

zapier.com/blog/best-meeting-scheduler-apps2

blog.hubspot.com/sales/best-scheduling-app1

blumint.co/blog/scheduling-tools-kill-off-email1

cal.com/blog/best-scheduling-apps1

calendly.com/1

calendly.com/blog/calendly-vs-doodle1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Microsoft Bookings

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

Microsoft bookings 1

The company

Microsoft is the company behind Microsoft Bookings.

Website: microsoft.com
Headquarters: Vancouver, Canada
Founded: 1975
Employees: about 228,000 (2024)
Ownership: Public, 4338 on Hong Kong Stock Exchange

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 Microsoft Bookings'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 Microsoft Bookings, 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 microsoft.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.