Every category where a model named Reputation 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
Review and reputation management	Marketing	4%	6 of 103	27%	37	criticized challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	2	3
GPT-5.4 mini	1	1	1	0	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	1	2	1	5
Mistral Small	0	2	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	0	3	6
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	2	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	0	2	4
Kimi K2	0	1	1	1	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	1	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	0	0	2

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

Direct14 labels2

Paraphrase16 labels4

Comparative30 labels5not counted in share

Budget-constrained14 labels2

Scale-constrained12 labels3

Negative23 labels4not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative109 labels in all, every segment counted; 11 of the 20 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.

“2. Reputation.com - Best for Enterprise Multi-Location ... Deep analytics and enterprise capabilities” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Reviews · comparative prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend Birdeye or Reputation.com as top reputation management tools.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Reviews · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Need everything in one place? → Birdeye or Reputation.com.” GPT-5.4 mini · Reviews · comparative prompt · first choice

“focus on Birdeye, Reputation.com, ReviewTrackers, and possibly Podium” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · scale prompt · first choice

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.

“Frequent Trustpilot accusations of scams, undelivered services ... Users report it as "flawed" for reputation tracking.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Reviews · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid Birdeye and Reputation.com unless you have many physical locations” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · paraphrase prompt · hard negative

“Avoid if budget is tight: Podium, Birdeye, Weave, and Reputation.com” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · budget prompt · hard negative

“Serious concerns about delivery and customer service.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Reputation, over the 108 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Reputation was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Birdeye100 of 10832Not in the top three

Podium58 of 1081Not in the top three

ReviewTrackers42 of 1083Not in the top three

SOCi33 of 1083Not in the top three

Yext32 of 1080Not in the top three

NiceJob28 of 1088Not in the top three

Trustpilot25 of 1080Not in the top three

ReviewGrower22 of 1086Not in the top three

Reviewflowz19 of 1084Not in the top three

BrightLocal18 of 1081Not 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 Reputation. 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 24 of the 108 answers that named Reputation and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

birdeye.com14

appfollow.io13

usa.inquirer.net13

g2.com12

guideflow.com9

thecmo.com8

almcorp.com6

feedbackrobot.com6

gartner.com6

learn.g2.com6

Ninety-three of the ninety-three domain citations in answers naming Reputation came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

appfollow.io/blog/reputation-management-software13

usa.inquirer.net/191823/best-reputation-management-software13

thecmo.com/tools/best-reputation-management-software8

g2.com/categories/online-reputation-management7

almcorp.com/blog/top-reputation-management-tools6

birdeye.com/blog/enterprise-reputation-management-software6

feedbackrobot.com/articles/best-reputation-management-software6

gartner.com/reviews/market/online-reputation-management-software6

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Reputation

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

Reputation.com 27Reputation (formerly Reputation.com) 2

The company

Reputation.com is the company behind Reputation.

Website: reputation.com
Headquarters: Redwood City, United States
Founded: 2006

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 Reputation'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 Reputation, 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 reputation.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.