GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › MNTN Performance TV · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

MNTN Performance TV

4Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

3 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. MNTN Performance TV was named 1 time in Video ads, where StackAdapt led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business28 of 112

under the label threshold

Mid-market55 of 121

under the label threshold

Enterprise40 of 100

under the label threshold

In video ads · 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 MNTN Performance TV 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	0%	55 of 121	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by StackAdapt at 24%

Movement

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

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

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 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.

“## Alternative: MNTN Performance TV” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Video 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as MNTN Performance TV, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and MNTN Performance TV was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Vibe.co3 of 42Not in the top three

StackAdapt3 of 40Not in the top three

The Trade Desk2 of 41Not in the top three

Amazon DSP1 of 41Not in the top three

Google Ads1 of 41Not in the top three

Hey Sid1 of 41Not in the top three

YouTube Ads1 of 41Not in the top three

Adobe Express1 of 40Not in the top three

Adwave1 of 40Not in the top three

Brandzooka1 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 MNTN Performance TV. 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 4 answers that named MNTN Performance TV and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

demandbase.com2

guideflow.com2

vibe.co2

adpushup.com1

adwave.com1

atlassian.com1

dacast.com1

g2.com1

heysid.com1

indiemedia.club1

Thirteen of the thirteen domain citations in answers naming MNTN Performance TV came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

demandbase.com/blog/best-ctv-advertising-platforms2

vibe.co/blog/how-to/video-advertising-platforms2

adpushup.com/blog/video-ad-networks1

adwave.com/resources/and-best-tools1

adwave.com/resources/best-streaming-tv-advertising-platforms1

atlassian.com/blog/loom/video-marketing-platform1

dacast.com/blog/best-video-marketing-platforms1

g2.com/categories/video-advertising1

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 MNTN Performance TV'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 MNTN Performance TV, 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 mntnperformancetv.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.