Every category where a model named Sendbird 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
In-app messaging and customer communications	Customer	0%	81 of 113	38%	13	criticized challenger

Movement

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

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	1	1	1	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	2	3
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	2	2	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct7 labels1

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative14 labels3not counted in share

Budget-constrained11 labels1

Scale-constrained6 labels1

Negative4 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative42 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 7 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.

“the "gold standard" for avoiding these pitfalls tends to lie with Sendbird (high customizability, robust native support)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · In-app messaging · negative prompt · first choice

“Choose Sendbird if you are an enterprise that needs deep security compliance, custom moderation, or massive scalability.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · In-app messaging · 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.

“Avoid if budget-tight: Sendbird/Agora/Twilio \u2013 Free tiers too limited” Grok 4.1 Fast · In-app messaging · budget prompt · hard negative

“High entry cost ... Heavily gated features ... No self-hosting option” DeepSeek V4 Flash · In-app messaging · negative prompt · hard negative

“Caveats: Most expensive to scale \u2014 2x the cost of Tencent RTC at 10K MAU” DeepSeek V4 Flash · In-app messaging · budget prompt · soft negative

“be extremely cautious about committing to Sendbird early on” Gemini 3.5 Flash · In-app messaging · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Sendbird, over the 42 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Sendbird was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CometChat33 of 422Not in the top three

Intercom27 of 424Not in the top three

Braze22 of 424Not in the top three

Stream22 of 423Not in the top three

Userpilot21 of 422Not in the top three

OneSignal20 of 423Not in the top three

Appcues18 of 421Not in the top three

PubNub18 of 421Not in the top three

Twilio Conversations13 of 420Not in the top three

Pendo11 of 421Not 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 Sendbird. 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 42 answers that named Sendbird and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cometchat.com1

dupple.com1

guideflow.com1

hellyeahai.com1

knock.app1

learn.g2.com1

netsfere.com1

pickmysoft.com1

productfruits.com1

pushwoosh.com1

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

Pages cited

cometchat.com/blog/best-enterprise-chat-platforms-for-in-app-messaging-20261

dupple.com/learn/best-in-app-messaging-tools1

guideflow.com/blog/in-app-messaging-software1

guideflow.com/blog/in-app-notification-software1

hellyeahai.com/blog/best-in-app-messaging-platform1

knock.app/blog/the-top-in-app-messaging-tools1

learn.g2.com/best-cpaas-platforms1

netsfere.com/Resources/Messaging-Insights/Top-enterprise-messaging-platforms1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Sendbird

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Sendbird; a claim can dispute any of them.

SendBird 1

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 Sendbird'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 Sendbird, 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 sendbird.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.