GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › ReviewGrower Lite · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ReviewGrower Lite

3Judge labels

2First choices

0Negative labels

3 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ReviewGrower Lite was named 1 time in Reviews, where Birdeye led with 26%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business22 of 83

under the label threshold

Mid-market18 of 103

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

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
Review and reputation management	Marketing	2%	18 of 103	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Birdeye at 26%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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-constrained3 labels2

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 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.

“at $37/month offers the best features for budgets of $50/month or less... provides the best balance of comprehensive features and affordable pricing” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Reviews · budget 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 ReviewGrower Lite, over the 3 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.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

StarFlywheel1 of 31Not in the top three

BrightLocal1 of 30Not in the top three

EmbedReviews1 of 30Not in the top three

Google Alerts1 of 30Not in the top three

Grade.us1 of 30Not in the top three

LocalImpact1 of 30Not in the top three

NiceJob1 of 30Not in the top three

Okendo1 of 30Not in the top three

Opineko1 of 30Not in the top three

REVIEWS.io1 of 30Not 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 ReviewGrower Lite. 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 1 of the 3 answers that named ReviewGrower Lite and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appfollow.io1

embedsocial.com1

expertreputation.com1

guideflow.com1

learn.g2.com1

localimpact.com1

reviewshake.com1

socialpilot.co1

storyprompt.com1

usa.inquirer.net1

Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming ReviewGrower Lite came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

appfollow.io/blog/reputation-management-software1

embedsocial.com/blog/best-reviews-management-software1

expertreputation.com/top-10-review-management-platforms-compared-features-pricing-and-stre1

guideflow.com/blog/online-reputation-management-tools1

learn.g2.com/best-review-management-software1

localimpact.com/blog/review-management-tools1

reviewshake.com/blog/affordable-review-software-guide1

socialpilot.co/reviews/blogs/review-management-software1

Pages are listed as the models cited 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.

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 reviewgrower.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.