GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › PubNub · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

PubNub

20Judge labels

1First choices

4Negative labels

6 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

8 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. PubNub was named 8 times in In-app messaging, where Intercom led with 20%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business62 of 112

under the label threshold

Mid-market30 of 113

under the label threshold

Enterprise18 of 96

under the label threshold

In in-app messaging · 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 PubNub 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
In-app messaging and customer communications	Customer	0%	30 of 113	12%	8	under 10 labels · led by Intercom at 20%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for PubNub 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 PubNub 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	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	1	0	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative7 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labels1

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“Best for: Pub/sub flexibility beyond chat (e.g., IoT). Headless API.” Grok 4.1 Fast · In-app messaging · budget prompt · alternative

“PubNub \u2014 Best for real-time infrastructure” DeepSeek V4 Flash · In-app messaging · budget 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.

“Not really a chat SDK ... you must build everything else yourself ... Unpredictable pricing” DeepSeek V4 Flash · In-app messaging · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as PubNub, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PubNub was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Sendbird18 of 203Not in the top three

CometChat15 of 201Not in the top three

Stream13 of 204Not in the top three

OneSignal12 of 201Not in the top three

Braze11 of 203Not in the top three

Twilio Conversations11 of 200Not in the top three

Intercom10 of 201Not in the top three

Appcues8 of 201Not in the top three

Userpilot8 of 201Not in the top three

CleverTap7 of 200Not 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.

The company

PubNub.

Website: pubnub.com
Founded: 2010

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 · 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 PubNub'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 PubNub, 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 pubnub.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.