Small business▲+2Since September 2026: 2% → 4%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 22 → 9 of 90
1 category · Named, not rankedReviewGrower Lite
6Judge labels
2First choices
0Negative labels
5 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
3 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ReviewGrower Lite was named 3 times in Reviews, where Birdeye led with 18%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business10 of 97
4%3 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market35 of 92
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In reviews · 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 ReviewGrower Lite 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review and reputation management | Marketing | 0% | 35 of 92 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Birdeye at 18% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, ReviewGrower Lite held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Reviews · by segment
Mid-market▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 18 → 34 of 86
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 18 → 35 of 92 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated ReviewGrower Lite across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated ReviewGrower Lite across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained6 labels2
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.
“ReviewGrower Lite costs $37/month and offers the best features at a budget of $50/month or less” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Reviews · budget prompt · alternative
“If you can invest a small amount monthly, ReviewGrower Lite is a strong low-cost option.” Mistral Small · Reviews · budget prompt · alternative
“5. ReviewGrower Lite (at $37/mo)” Llama 4 Maverick · Reviews · 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.
No model argued against it.
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ReviewGrower Lite, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ReviewGrower Lite was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ReviewGrower Lite, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ReviewGrower Lite was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 ReviewGrower Lite. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 6 of the 6 answers that named ReviewGrower Lite and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
learn.g2.com6
usa.inquirer.net6
embedsocial.com5
appfollow.io4
wiserreview.com4
surveysparrow.com3
g2.com2
socialpilot.co2
zapier.com2
blog.hubspot.com1
Thirty-five of the thirty-five domain citations in answers naming ReviewGrower Lite came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
reviewgrower.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ReviewGrower Lite takes 0% of first choices and Birdeye takes 18%.ShowHide
Search and answers
reviewgrower.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ReviewGrower Lite takes 0% of first choices and Birdeye takes 18%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “online review management platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best online review management platform”
–
not in the top ten
- Organic visits to its site
- about 3,963 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 3,879 · 11 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,498
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
Ads on Google
None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 35 of 92 in reviews
Segment leader
18%
Birdeye
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 6 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 6 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on reviewgrower.com
568
subdomains included
Content
349
counted in the table below
Documentation
29
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 250 | 0 | 2026-03-04 | SEO, Mobile apps | |
| Comparison | 57 | 0 | 2026-01-05 | ||
| Report or ebook | 22 | 0 | 2023-08-29 | SEO | |
| Template or tool | 7 | 0 | 2023-03-03 | SEO | |
| Glossary or explainer | 7 | 0 | 2023-09-19 | ||
| Podcast or video | 3 | 0 | 2023-03-03 | ||
| Case study | 2 | undated | |||
| News or press | 1 | 0 | 2023-01-09 |
Most recent
- 2026-03-04How to grow an electrical business blog
- 2026-01-05Reputation com vs yext top review tools comparison
- 2025-12-05Keyword tool vs keyword surfer comparison
- 2025-10-21Google keyword planner vs keyword tool comparison
- 2025-10-21Moz keyword explorer vs long tail pro comparison
- 2025-10-17Podium vs trustpilot comparison
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page reviewgrower.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Of its titles that name a category, most name SEO (28); 0 name the category the models place it in. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow ReviewGrower Lite
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
ReviewGrower Lite is its own company.ShowHide
The company
ReviewGrower Lite is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Display reviews, Monitor reviews, Get reviews & share them
- For
- agencies
- Price stated
- $37/Mo; $370/Year reviewgrower.com/pricing
- Starting price
- $37/Mo reviewgrower.com/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Try For Free reviewgrower.com/pricing
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What ReviewGrower Lite's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: reviewgrower.com, reviewgrower.com/pricing, reviewgrower.com/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 ReviewGrower Lite'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 ReviewGrower Lite, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for ReviewGrower Lite by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ReviewGrower Lite is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name ReviewGrower Lite, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.