Small business▲+6Since September 2026: 2% → 9%, +6 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
9%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 5 pointsRank 12 → 3 of 90
1 category · Named, not rankedREVIEWS.io
19Judge labels
5First choices
0Negative labels
11 / 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
9 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. REVIEWS.io was named 9 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 business5 of 97
7%9 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market17 of 92
2%9 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise56 of 88
0%1 label
under the label threshold
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 REVIEWS.io 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 | 2% | 17 of 92 | 0% | 9 | under 10 labels · led by Birdeye at 18% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, REVIEWS.io held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Reviews · by segment
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 24 → 16 of 86
EnterprisenewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 53 of 84, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 24 → 17 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 REVIEWS.io 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 REVIEWS.io 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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
Direct8 labels3
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative4 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained7 labels2
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative19 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 6 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.
“Highly recommended for small businesses, offering a free plan and strong satisfaction scores” Mistral Small · Reviews · budget prompt · first choice
“Focuses on insight extraction from reviews, especially for commerce use cases.” Perplexity Sonar · Reviews · comparative prompt · alternative
“Another affordable option: REVIEWS.io — plans starting at $29/month” Perplexity Sonar · Reviews · budget prompt · alternative
“G2 free pick; good for high-growth but limited free features.” Grok 4.20 · 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 REVIEWS.io, over the 19 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and REVIEWS.io was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as REVIEWS.io, over the 19 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and REVIEWS.io 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 REVIEWS.io. 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 19 of the 19 answers that named REVIEWS.io and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
g2.com13
appfollow.io11
learn.g2.com11
birdeye.com9
us.fitgap.com9
surveysparrow.com8
usa.inquirer.net8
zapier.com8
gatherup.com7
socialpilot.co7
Ninety-one of the ninety-one domain citations in answers naming REVIEWS.io came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
reviews.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, REVIEWS.io takes 2% of first choices and Birdeye takes 18%.ShowHide
Search and answers
reviews.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, REVIEWS.io takes 2% 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
- Searches for its name, Google
- 590 a month (“reviews.io”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 124 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 508,649 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 78,892 · 1,815 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 17,500
- Paid Google search
- 3 searches its ads show for, about 53 clicks and $2,602 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 17 of 92 in reviews
Segment leader
18%
Birdeye
- First choices
- 5 across its categories
- Named in
- 19 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 19 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 reviews.io
10,000
subdomains included
Content
92
counted in the table below
Documentation
265
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report or ebook | 63 | 23 | 2026-09-29 | ||
| Comparison | 15 | 3 | 2026-09-25 | ||
| Conference or event | 7 | 5 | 2026-09-29 | ||
| Template or tool | 3 | 0 | 2024-04-24 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 2 | 2 | 2026-09-18 | ||
| Case study | 1 | undated | |||
| News or press | 1 | 1 | 2026-09-27 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-29Conferencebadge.co.uk conference or event
- 2026-09-29Brisbanebookwriting.com report or ebook
- 2026-09-29Primebookpublication.com report or ebook
- 2026-09-29Expo trust net conference or event
- 2026-09-28Thebookbridge.co report or ebook
- 2026-09-28Www.cambridgebookpublishers.com report or ebook
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page reviews.io 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. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as REVIEWS.io
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as REVIEWS.io; a claim can dispute any of them.
Reviews.io 6
Follow REVIEWS.io
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
REVIEWS.io is its own company.ShowHide
The company
REVIEWS.io is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Review collection made simple. Our friendly review platform helps you build trust quickly with our monthly subscription & flexible plans.
- For
- brands
- Price stated
- monthly subscription & flexible plans reviews.io
- Starting price
- 29 reviews.io/front/pricingplans
- Free plan or trial
- 14-day free trial available reviews.io
- Customers named
- DenmanBOXRAWHunter & GatherGreyston BakeryDaniel SinghConcrete JungleZipsterWolfgang Fuchs
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations, certifications, hosting
What REVIEWS.io's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: reviews.io, reviews.io/front/pricingplans, reviews.io/company-reviews/store/platform1-po3-capital. 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 REVIEWS.io'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 REVIEWS.io, 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 REVIEWS.io by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where REVIEWS.io 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 REVIEWS.io, 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.