ON24

Named in 26 judge labels across 1 category by 6 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 2 first choices, 11 negative labels. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Best standing

7% in Webinars

Rank 6 of 41 products named in webinar and virtual event platforms, criticized challenger. 0 of 6 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 42% of its 26 labels there were negative.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named ON24. 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
Webinar and virtual event platforms	Marketing	7%	6 of 41	42%	26	criticized challenger

By model

How each model treated ON24 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	1	3	1	0	5
GPT-6 Astra	0	3	0	1	4
GPT-5.6 Sol	1	3	0	2	6
Gemini 3.1 Pro	0	1	0	5	6
Perplexity Sonar Pro	0	1	0	1	2

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“ON24 is often the top pick for B2B software companies specifically... I'd shortlist ON24 (if data/attribution is the priority and budget allows)” Claude Opus 4.8 · Webinars · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“For most 500-person B2B companies, I would initially test your incumbent collaboration platform, ON24 or Goldcast” GPT-5.6 Sol · Webinars · scale prompt · first choice

“Choose ON24 instead if you need the deepest engagement analytics and lead-scoring maturity and have the budget for it” Claude Opus 4.8 · Webinars · direct prompt · alternative

“the enterprise heavyweight for first-party data capture, personalized content journeys, and compliance-heavy industries” Claude Opus 5 · Webinars · 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.

“potentially expensive and cumbersome. Reviews frequently mention learning curve, confusing administration, integration limitations and upcharges.” GPT-5.6 Sol · Webinars · negative prompt · soft negative

“Choose ON24 or Bizzabo only if you need a more enterprise-style event stack ... framed more as mid-to-enterprise options” Perplexity Sonar Pro · Webinars · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“It is expensive, the backend interface has a steep learning curve, and it generally requires a dedicated event manager” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Webinars · direct prompt · soft negative

“the interface can feel a bit dated... cost/complexity is often overkill for a mid-sized company” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Webinars · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Names read as ON24

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ON24; a claim can dispute any of them.

Cvent + ON24 1

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 ON24, 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.