WordPress

Named in 37 judge labels across 1 category by 6 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 6 first choices, 9 negative labels. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Best standing

22% in Marketing CMS

Rank 3 of 39 products named in content management systems for marketing sites, accepted challenger. 0 of 6 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 24% of its 37 labels there were negative.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named WordPress. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Vertical	First choices	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Content management systems for marketing sites	Marketing	22%	3 of 39	24%	37	accepted challenger

By model

How each model treated WordPress across every prompt where it was named. Six models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Opus 5	1	1	1	3	6
Claude Opus 4.8	2	3	0	1	6
GPT-6 Astra	2	4	0	1	7
GPT-5.6 Sol	2	1	2	1	6
Gemini 3.1 Pro	1	3	1	2	7
Perplexity Sonar Pro	1	3	0	1	5

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“For most companies with a limited budget, WordPress.org on affordable managed hosting provides the best balance of cost, marketing capability, and future flexibility.” GPT-5.6 Sol · Marketing CMS · budget prompt · first choice

“Best general-purpose choice: WordPress, provided you have disciplined hosting, plugin governance, and maintenance.” GPT-5.6 Sol · Marketing CMS · comparative prompt · first choice

“My default recommendation is WordPress.com on a paid plan for a small company with a tight budget” GPT-6 Astra · Marketing CMS · budget prompt · first choice

“For most budget-constrained companies, WordPress on decent managed hosting is the safest pick” Claude Opus 5 · Marketing CMS · budget prompt · first choice

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.

“Traditional/Monolithic (e.g., WordPress): ... Easier to set up, but can become bloated." ... "Prone to security vulnerabilities if plugins aren't strictly managed.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Marketing CMS · scale prompt · soft negative

“for a mid-market company without a dedicated web engineer, the plugin/security/maintenance tax usually outweighs the flexibility” Claude Opus 5 · Marketing CMS · direct prompt · soft negative

“It is an excellent choice for marketing websites, but it requires massive caution regarding how it is built.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Marketing CMS · negative prompt · soft negative

“not automatically a bad choice, but it deserves caution if you lack maintenance resources” Perplexity Sonar Pro · Marketing CMS · negative prompt · soft negative

Names read as WordPress

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

WordPress VIP 5Managed WordPress 2Managed WordPress (WP Engine or Kinsta) 1WordPress (Self-Hosted WordPress.org) 1WordPress on managed hosting 1WordPress.com 1WordPress.org 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page gets a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as WordPress, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a logo and one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or quadrants, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. Sponsorship is separate: a sponsor funds categories or buyer dimensions and is named on what it funded, and the rules are the same for every sponsor.