Index › Products › StoreMaven · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

StoreMaven

5Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

3 / 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

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. StoreMaven was named 3 times in App store optimization, where AppTweak led with 39%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market25 of 56

under the label threshold

Enterprise29 of 40

under the label threshold

In app store optimization · 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 StoreMaven 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
App store optimization tools	Marketing	0%	25 of 56	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by AppTweak at 39%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for StoreMaven 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 StoreMaven 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	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	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	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 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.

“TheTool, Storemaven, and SplitMetrics excel in performance tracking and conversion optimization” Mistral Small · App store optimization · comparative prompt · alternative

“SplitMetrics / StoreMaven – A/B testing” DeepSeek V4 Flash · App store optimization · negative 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 StoreMaven, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and StoreMaven was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Sensor Tower5 of 52Not among the top eight

AppFollow4 of 51Not among the top eight

AppTweak4 of 51Not among the top eight

SplitMetrics Optimize4 of 50Not among the top eight

Gummicube3 of 50Not among the top eight

App Radar2 of 51Not among the top eight

App Annie2 of 50Not among the top eight

MobileAction2 of 50Not among the top eight

Mobile Action1 of 51Not among the top eight

ASO Scan1 of 50Not 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 StoreMaven. 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 4 of the 5 answers that named StoreMaven and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appdrift.co2

appfollow.io2

appmysite.com2

apptweak.com2

aso.dev2

blog.9cv9.com2

blog.cultmedia.io2

clickup.com2

guideflow.com2

webseotrends.com2

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

Pages cited

appdrift.co/blog/15-best-app-store-optimization-tools2

appfollow.io/blog/aso-tools2

appmysite.com/blog/top-app-store-optimization-tools2

aso.dev/compare/best-aso-tools2

blog.9cv9.com/top-10-best-app-store-optimization-aso-tools-in-20242

blog.cultmedia.io/blog/best-aso-tools2

clickup.com/blog/aso-tools2

guideflow.com/blog/best-aso-tools2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as StoreMaven

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

Storemaven 2

Follow StoreMaven

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

where StoreMaven 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 StoreMaven, 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.