Every category where a model named Usercentrics 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	4%	7 of 39	17%	36	accepted challenger
Tag management	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	18 of 59	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Google Tag Manager at 77%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Usercentrics 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 Usercentrics 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	0	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	5	1	0	6
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	0	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	4	0	1	5
Mistral Small	1	2	0	1	4
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	2	1	5
Kimi K2	1	2	0	1	4
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	1	2	4
MiniMax M2.5	0	3	0	0	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

Direct15 labels2

Paraphrase14 labels1

Comparative25 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained10 labels2

Scale-constrained15 labels1

Negative19 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative98 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 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.

“while Usercentrics offers the best balance of features and pricing transparency for most businesses” Mistral Small · Consent · comparative prompt · first choice

“Enzuzo or Usercentrics will be your best choices” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Consent · direct prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend Usercentrics as the primary choice” Kimi K2 · Consent · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“*Best for pure-play cookie compliance.* Very strong auto-blocking capabilities... However, it lacks the broader "privacy suite" features” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Consent · scale 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.

“Platforms with Significant Concerns... Pricing transparency issues... one review called it a "complete scam"” Kimi K2 · Consent · negative prompt · hard negative

“What to Avoid... Start at $10,000+/year with enterprise pricing” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Consent · budget prompt · hard negative

“Proceed only if you have a dedicated dev team capable of manually troubleshooting tag overrides and verifying scan accuracy weekly.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Consent · negative prompt · soft negative

“complaints on slow/unhelpful support (days/weeks), surprise auto-upgrades/billing ... performance hits” Grok 4.1 Fast · Consent · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Usercentrics, over the 98 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Usercentrics was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

OneTrust86 of 9829Not in the top three

Osano69 of 986Not in the top three

Cookiebot59 of 985Not in the top three

Didomi55 of 980Not in the top three

Ketch53 of 9812Not in the top three

TrustArc53 of 983Not in the top three

CookieYes40 of 9810Not in the top three

Enzuzo33 of 988Not in the top three

Secure Privacy23 of 982Not in the top three

iubenda21 of 984Not 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 Usercentrics. 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 16 of the 98 answers that named Usercentrics and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

enzuzo.com13

usercentrics.comYour site13

expertinsights.com10

consently.net9

ethyca.com9

ketch.com9

comparitech.com8

learn.g2.com8

osano.com8

secureprivacy.ai8

Eighty-two of the ninety-five domain citations in answers naming Usercentrics came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

enzuzo.com/blog/best-consent-management-platforms11

usercentrics.com/knowledge-hub/consent-management-platforms11

ethyca.com/news/top-consent-management-platforms-for-compliance9

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-consent-management-solutions9

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

learn.g2.com/best-consent-management-platforms8

comparitech.com/data-privacy-management/best-consent-management-platforms7

enzuzo.com/blog/best-enterprise-consent-management-platforms7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Usercentrics

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

Cookiebot / Usercentrics 2Usercentrics (and Cookiebot) 1Usercentrics (inc. Cookiebot) 1Usercentrics (incorporating Cookiebot) 1Usercentrics / Cookiebot (Usercentrics Group) 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 Usercentrics'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 Usercentrics, 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 usercentrics.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.