Every category where a model named Open Loyalty 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
Loyalty, advocacy and referrals	Marketing	2%	9 of 124	0%	14	accepted challenger
Referral and partner programs	Partner and channel	0%	38 of 107	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by PartnerStack at 19%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	1	1	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	2	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1	2
Kimi K2	0	0	2	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	1	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	1

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 labels5

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative32 labels4not counted in share

Budget-constrained12 labels2

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative7 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative69 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 13 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.

“Open Loyalty is the best-fit option among the results for mid-market and enterprise companies” Perplexity Sonar · Loyalty · direct prompt · first choice

“Building a custom app or needing full code control? Look at Open Loyalty.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Referrals · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for: Enterprises with strong development teams” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Referrals · comparative prompt · alternative

“API-first, composable toolkit for custom builds” Perplexity Sonar · Loyalty · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Open Loyalty, over the 69 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Open Loyalty was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Extole42 of 6910Not in the top three

Ambassador33 of 692Not in the top three

ReferralCandy31 of 691Not in the top three

Friendbuy30 of 691Not in the top three

Talon.One29 of 694Not in the top three

Smile.io25 of 695Not in the top three

Annex Cloud24 of 692Not in the top three

Yotpo24 of 691Not in the top three

Voucherify23 of 692Not in the top three

LoyaltyLion23 of 691Not 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 Open Loyalty. 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 14 of the 69 answers that named Open Loyalty and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

openloyalty.ioYour site12

voucherify.io10

whitelabel-loyalty.com8

gartner.com6

neoday.com6

directiveconsulting.com5

netguru.com5

reverbico.com5

raftlabs.com4

smile.io4

Fifty-three of the sixty-five domain citations in answers naming Open Loyalty came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

openloyalty.io/insider/best-loyalty-software-comparison-guide9

gartner.com/reviews/market/loyalty-program-vendors6

neoday.com/blog/best-customer-loyalty-platforms-20266

whitelabel-loyalty.com/blog/technology/best-customer-loyalty-platforms-for-businesses6

directiveconsulting.com/blog/blog-b2b-loyalty-program-software5

netguru.com/blog/best-customer-loyalty-software-platforms5

voucherify.io/blog/best-enterprise-loyalty-software5

voucherify.io/blog/best-loyalty-management-software-review5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Open Loyalty

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

Antavo/Open Loyalty 1

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 Open Loyalty'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 Open Loyalty, 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 openloyalty.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.