Small businessnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 82 of 90, unchanged
3 categories · Named, not rankedSitejabber
11Judge labels
0First choices
11Negative labels
7 / 14Models named it
3Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
5 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Sitejabber was named 5 times in Reviews and 2 other categories, 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 business87 of 97
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Mid-market92 of 92
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise85 of 88
0%2 labels
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 Sitejabber 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 | 0% | 92 of 92 | 100% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Birdeye at 18% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Content marketing platforms | Marketing | 0% | 129 of 135 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Content Hub at 33% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Customer feedback and surveys | Customer | 0% | 75 of 84 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by CustomerGauge at 24% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Sitejabber held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Reviews · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 98 → 86 of 86
EnterprisenewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 82 of 84, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 98 → 92 of 92 |
| Content marketing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 129 of 135, unchanged |
| Feedback | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 94 → 75 of 84 |
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 Sitejabber 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 Sitejabber 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative11 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative11 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.
No positive label carried a quote.
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.
“Platforms to Avoid or Approach with Extreme Caution: - Sitejabber ...: FTC settlement in January 2025 for misrepresenting ratings and reviews” Grok 4.20 · Reviews · negative prompt · hard negative
“The FTC has specifically warned about deceptive review practices and took action against Sitejabber over misrepresenting reviews.” GPT-5.4 mini · Reviews · negative prompt · hard negative
“the FTC approved a final order against Sitejabber... Do not use these platforms to vet other marketing software.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Content marketing · negative prompt · hard negative
“Do extra due diligence - Sitejabber: The FTC approved a final order in January 2025 after alleging that Sitejabber presented some ratings and reviews collected at checkout” GPT-6 Luna · Reviews · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Sitejabber, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Sitejabber was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Sitejabber, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Sitejabber 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 Sitejabber. 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 10 of the 11 answers that named Sitejabber and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
ftc.gov8
guideflow.com4
socialpilot.co4
typeform.com4
wiserreview.com4
bbb.org3
blog.hubspot.com3
reddit.com3
techradar.com3
trustpilot.com3
Thirty-nine of the thirty-nine domain citations in answers naming Sitejabber came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on sitejabber.com
10,000
subdomains included
Content
35
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report or ebook | 19 | 0 | 2025-12-12 | ||
| Conference or event | 5 | 0 | 2020-11-23 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 5 | 0 | 2024-11-25 | ||
| Comparison | 3 | 0 | 2025-10-15 | ||
| Blog | 2 | 0 | 2023-11-24 | ||
| Template or tool | 1 | 0 | 2021-10-30 |
Most recent
- 2025-12-12Campsiebooks.com report or ebook
- 2025-11-17Facebook.com report or ebook
- 2025-10-15B2 sornas vs gp1.myshopify.com comparison
- 2025-10-15Compareforexbrokers.com comparison
- 2025-10-10Abebooks.com report or ebook
- 2024-11-25Academy.com glossary or explainer
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page sitejabber.com 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.
Follow Sitejabber
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
SiteJabber is the company behind Sitejabber.ShowHide
The company
SiteJabber is the company behind Sitejabber.
ShowHideOn record
Wikidata- Website
- sitejabber.com
- Headquarters
- San Francisco, United States
- Founded
- 2008
Fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · Crunchbase
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 Sitejabber'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 Sitejabber, 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 Sitejabber by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Sitejabber 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 Sitejabber, 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.