Every category where a model named Reviewflowz 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	11%	2 of 103	0%	17	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Direct12 labels8

Paraphrase8 labels5

Comparative7 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained11 labels1

Scale-constrained3 labels1

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative42 labels in all, every segment counted; 15 of the 16 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.

“Choose Reviewflowz. It's purpose-built for the review sites that actually drive your B2B purchasing decisions” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · direct prompt · first choice

“or ReviewFlowz at $29/month if you need more advanced multi-platform management” Kimi K2 · Reviews · budget prompt · first choice

“Best Overall for B2B SaaS & Tech: Reviewflowz” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Reviews · direct prompt · first choice

“Reviewflowz is highly recommended” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Reviews · paraphrase 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Reviewflowz, over the 42 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Reviewflowz was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Birdeye32 of 428Compare →

Podium22 of 420Not in the top three

Reputation19 of 423Not in the top three

NiceJob17 of 421Not in the top three

ReviewGrower11 of 422Not in the top three

ReviewTrackers10 of 421Compare →

BrightLocal10 of 420Not in the top three

Trustpilot9 of 420Not in the top three

EmbedReviews8 of 422Not in the top three

GatherUp8 of 420Not 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 Reviewflowz. 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 3 of the 42 answers that named Reviewflowz and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appfollow.io3

birdeye.com2

feedbackrobot.com2

guideflow.com2

learn.g2.com2

surveysparrow.com2

thecmo.com2

usa.inquirer.net2

wiserreview.com2

zapier.com2

Twenty-one of the twenty-one domain citations in answers naming Reviewflowz came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

appfollow.io/blog/reputation-management-software3

feedbackrobot.com/articles/best-reputation-management-software2

learn.g2.com/best-review-management-software2

thecmo.com/tools/best-reputation-management-software2

usa.inquirer.net/191823/best-reputation-management-software2

wiserreview.com/blog/online-reputation-management-software2

zapier.com/blog/review-management-software2

almcorp.com/blog/top-reputation-management-tools1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Reviewflowz

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

ReviewFlowz 4

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 Reviewflowz'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 Reviewflowz, 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 reviewflowz.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.