GTM AI Index
Index Vendors › Weld · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Ranked

Weld

13Judge labels
4First choices
1Negative labels
8 of 12Models named it
1Category
September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in Warehouse & ETL for mid-market buyers
Rank 5 of 100 in the mid-market standing
0 of 12 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 4 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In warehouse & etl · 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 Weld 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
Data warehouse and reverse ETL for marketingGTM data and infrastructure2%5 of 1000%4under 10 labels · led by Hightouch at 42%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Weld 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 Weld across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar10001
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00000
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash10001
Kimi K200000
GLM 4.7 FlashX01001
MiniMax M2.500101

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
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained9 labels4
Scale-constrained3 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 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.

“Weld ($99/month) as your unified platform for ingestion, SQL transformations, and reverse ETL.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Warehouse & ETL · budget prompt · first choice
“Reverse ETL: Weld is the clearest budget-friendly option ... starts at $99/month” Perplexity Sonar · Warehouse & ETL · budget prompt · first choice
“Weld - All-in-one platform (ingestion + reverse ETL)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Warehouse & ETL · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Weld, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Weld was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
BigQuery11 of 135Not in the top three
Snowflake11 of 133Not in the top three
Fivetran10 of 130Not in the top three
Hightouch9 of 137Not in the top three
Census9 of 134Not in the top three
Amazon Redshift7 of 130Not in the top three
Airbyte6 of 130Not in the top three
dbt6 of 130Not in the top three
Improvado5 of 131Not in the top three
Stitch5 of 130Not 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 Weld. 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 3 of the 13 answers that named Weld and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cometly.com3
empirium.io3
improvado.io3
leadjourney.io3
supermetrics.com3
weld.appYour site3
blog.coupler.io2
definite.app2
funnel.io2
ninjacat.io2

Twenty-three of the twenty-six domain citations in answers naming Weld came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

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 Weld'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 Weld, 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 weld.app 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.