Every category where a model named ReviewGrower 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%	7 of 103	0%	13	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ReviewGrower 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 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	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	0	2
Kimi K2	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
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

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative15 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained10 labels4

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative6 labels4not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative35 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 9 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.

“good value, transparent pricing ($9.95/location/month), free plan, white-label included” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · negative prompt · first choice

“ReviewGrower stands out as the best online review management platform” Grok 4.1 Fast · Reviews · budget prompt · first choice

“ReviewGrower – Best Overall Value” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Reviews · budget prompt · first choice

“Value leader; enterprise-grade features at ~$9.95/location with a free plan.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · comparative 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, over the 35 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ReviewGrower was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Birdeye30 of 358Not in the top three

Podium24 of 351Not in the top three

Reputation22 of 351Not in the top three

NiceJob20 of 357Not in the top three

BrightLocal13 of 351Not in the top three

SOCi12 of 351Not in the top three

Reviewflowz11 of 352Not in the top three

ReviewTrackers9 of 351Not in the top three

GatherUp9 of 350Not in the top three

Yotpo9 of 350Not 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. 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 2 of the 35 answers that named ReviewGrower and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

almcorp.com2

thecmo.com2

usa.inquirer.net2

appfollow.io1

birdeye.com1

cbinsights.com1

emitrr.com1

guideflow.com1

reviewflowz.com1

reviewtrackers.com1

Thirteen of the thirteen domain citations in answers naming ReviewGrower came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

almcorp.com/blog/top-reputation-management-tools2

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

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

appfollow.io/blog/reputation-management-software1

birdeye.com/alternatives/podium-alternatives1

birdeye.com/compare1

cbinsights.com/compare/birdeye-vs-repdrive1

emitrr.com/blog/podium-alternative1

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'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, 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.