Northbeam

Named in 14 judge labels across 1 category by 6 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 0 first choices, 5 negative labels. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Best standing

0% in Attribution & MMM

Rank 18 of 82 products named in attribution and marketing mix modeling, criticized challenger. 0 of 6 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 36% of its 14 labels there were negative.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Northbeam. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Vertical	First choices	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Attribution and marketing mix modeling	Marketing	0%	18 of 82	36%	14	criticized challenger

By model

How each model treated Northbeam across every prompt where it was named. Six models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Opus 5	0	1	0	2	3
Claude Opus 4.8	0	0	1	0	1
GPT-6 Astra	0	2	0	1	3
GPT-5.6 Sol	0	1	0	1	2
Gemini 3.1 Pro	1	0	1	1	3
Perplexity Sonar Pro	0	1	1	0	2

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Triple Whale / Northbeam: The undisputed leaders for e-commerce and DTC brands” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Attribution & MMM · comparative prompt · first choice

“Ecommerce with substantial digital acquisition | Northbeam | Offers attribution and MMM+.” GPT-6 Astra · Attribution & MMM · scale prompt · alternative

“Choose Northbeam if you are an ecommerce or DTC team that wants blended attribution” Perplexity Sonar Pro · Attribution & MMM · comparative prompt · alternative

“Strong candidate when media measurement is the central job.” GPT-6 Astra · Attribution & MMM · 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.

“using SMB e-commerce tools (like Triple Whale, Ruler Analytics, or Northbeam) if you are a complex B2B or omnichannel enterprise” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Attribution & MMM · negative prompt · soft negative

“never take their numbers on faith, run a holdout test before acting on their recommendations” Claude Opus 5 · Attribution & MMM · negative prompt · soft negative

“Be cautious if you need an impartial paid-versus-owned-channel comparison.” GPT-6 Astra · Attribution & MMM · negative prompt · soft negative

“cites ease of use as the reason to pick it over Northbeam (listed ~$1,500/mo)” Claude Opus 5 · Attribution & MMM · budget prompt · soft negative

Names read as Northbeam

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

Every label used the canonical name.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page gets a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Northbeam, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a logo and one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or quadrants, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. Sponsorship is separate: a sponsor funds categories or buyer dimensions and is named on what it funded, and the rules are the same for every sponsor.