Index › Products › Smarp · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Smarp

16Judge labels

1First choices

2Negative labels

8 / 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

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Smarp was named 5 times in Employee advocacy, where DSMN8 led with 21%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business27 of 63

under the label threshold

Mid-market23 of 64

under the label threshold

Enterprise9 of 55

under the label threshold

In employee advocacy · 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 Smarp 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
Employee advocacy platforms	Marketing	0%	23 of 64	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by DSMN8 at 21%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Smarp yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Smarp across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	2	0	2

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase3 labels1

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative16 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“is in the same low-mid range at ~$5-$9/user/month and is noted for ease of use and gamification” Muse Glimmer 30B · Employee advocacy · budget prompt · alternative

“mobile-first, branded experience” Muse Glimmer 30B · Employee advocacy · 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 Smarp, over the 16 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Smarp was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

EveryoneSocial12 of 165Not among the top eight

GaggleAMP10 of 161Not among the top eight

Clearview Social8 of 162Not among the top eight

Sociabble7 of 160Not among the top eight

DSMN86 of 161Not among the top eight

Oktopost6 of 160Not among the top eight

Bambu5 of 161Not among the top eight

Hootsuite Amplify5 of 160Not among the top eight

PostBeyond5 of 160Not among the top eight

SocialToaster4 of 162Not among the top eight

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 Smarp. 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 12 of the 16 answers that named Smarp and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

blog.hootsuite.com12

guideflow.com10

dsmn8.com8

g2.com8

sproutsocial.com8

zigpoll.com8

referralrock.com7

supergrow.ai7

flockler.com5

gitnux.org5

No domain is on file for Smarp, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

blog.hootsuite.com/employee-advocacy-tools11

dsmn8.com/blog/how-to-choose-the-best-employee-advocacy-platform8

guideflow.com/blog/best-employee-advocacy-software-tools8

sproutsocial.com/insights/employee-advocacy-tools8

referralrock.com/blog/employee-advocacy-software7

supergrow.ai/blog/employee-advocacy-tools7

g2.com/categories/employee-advocacy6

gitnux.org/best/employee-advocacy-software5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Smarp

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

Smarp (FirstUp) 1

Follow Smarp

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.

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 Smarp'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 Smarp, 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 Smarp by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Smarp 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 Smarp, 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.