Every category where a model named ReviewTrackers 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	9%	3 of 103	0%	23	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Direct9 labels2

Paraphrase8 labels3

Comparative20 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained5 labels1

Scale-constrained11 labels1

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative57 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 8 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.

“Start with ReviewTrackers for balanced mid-market B2B needs—it's purpose-built for your scale and sites.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Reviews · direct prompt · first choice

“focus on Birdeye, Reputation.com, ReviewTrackers” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Reviews · scale prompt · first choice

“my default pick would be ReviewTrackers” GPT-5.4 mini · Reviews · direct prompt · first choice

“Top Recommendation: ReviewTrackers” Kimi K2 · 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 ReviewTrackers, over the 57 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ReviewTrackers was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Birdeye52 of 5725Compare →

Reputation42 of 579Not in the top three

Podium37 of 571Not in the top three

Yext22 of 570Not in the top three

NiceJob19 of 574Not in the top three

Trustpilot15 of 570Not in the top three

SOCi14 of 570Not in the top three

BrightLocal11 of 572Not in the top three

Sprout Social11 of 570Not in the top three

Reviewflowz10 of 572Compare →

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 ReviewTrackers. 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 10 of the 57 answers that named ReviewTrackers and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

birdeye.com6

usa.inquirer.net6

g2.com5

appfollow.io4

gartner.com4

learn.g2.com4

ranked.solutions4

almcorp.com3

guideflow.com3

alchemer.com2

Forty-one of the forty-one domain citations in answers naming ReviewTrackers came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

usa.inquirer.net/191823/best-reputation-management-software6

appfollow.io/blog/reputation-management-software4

g2.com/categories/online-reputation-management4

gartner.com/reviews/market/online-reputation-management-software4

ranked.solutions/rankings/review-management-software4

almcorp.com/blog/top-reputation-management-tools3

learn.g2.com/best-online-reputation-management-tools3

learn.g2.com/best-review-management-software3

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 ReviewTrackers'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 ReviewTrackers, 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 reviewtrackers.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.