Every category where a model named TrustArc 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
Consent and privacy management	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	35 of 39	37%	19	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for TrustArc 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 TrustArc 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	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	1	1	0	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	2	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	0	1	3

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

Direct16 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labelsNone

Comparative18 labels4not counted in share

Budget-constrained10 labelsNone

Scale-constrained8 labelsNone

Negative22 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative81 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 4 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.

“Enterprise privacy program: OneTrust or TrustArc.” GPT-5.4 mini · Consent · comparative prompt · first choice

“Similar enterprise positioning to OneTrust... but quote-only pricing and historically weak customer service.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Consent · comparative prompt · alternative

“Choose TrustArc if you need a more robust privacy platform beyond consent” GPT-5.4 mini · Consent · direct prompt · alternative

“Strong for organizations wanting unified privacy and consent management” Perplexity Sonar · Consent · 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.

“High cost: Median contracts around $15,000/year... Slow feature development... Steep learning curve” Kimi K2 · Consent · negative prompt · hard negative

“Enterprise pricing: $15,000-$40,000/year minimum ... Multiple third-party tags slip through” MiniMax M2.5 · Consent · negative prompt · hard negative

“Trustpilot rating: 1.9/5 ... Poor customer support (16 negative reviews)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Consent · negative prompt · hard negative

“OneTrust, TrustArc, and Didomi are out for a limited budget” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Consent · budget prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as TrustArc, over the 81 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and TrustArc was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

OneTrust79 of 8132Not in the top three

Osano55 of 813Not in the top three

Usercentrics53 of 814Not in the top three

Didomi53 of 812Not in the top three

Cookiebot49 of 813Not in the top three

Ketch48 of 8115Not in the top three

CookieYes30 of 819Not in the top three

Secure Privacy27 of 814Not in the top three

Enzuzo21 of 814Not in the top three

iubenda18 of 813Not 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 TrustArc. 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 17 of the 81 answers that named TrustArc and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

didomi.io11

enzuzo.com11

consently.net9

ketch.com9

osano.com9

usercentrics.com9

expertinsights.com8

secureprivacy.ai8

ethyca.com7

comparitech.com6

Eighty-seven of the eighty-seven domain citations in answers naming TrustArc came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

enzuzo.com/blog/best-consent-management-platforms10

ketch.com/blog/posts/consent-management-platforms9

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-consent-management-solutions8

osano.com/comparison/consent-management-platform8

secureprivacy.ai/blog/best-cmp-20268

usercentrics.com/knowledge-hub/consent-management-platforms8

didomi.io/blog/enterprise-consent-management-platforms-best-cmp-20267

ethyca.com/news/top-consent-management-platforms-for-compliance7

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 TrustArc'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 TrustArc, 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 trustarc.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.