| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workflow automation and iPaaS | GTM data and infrastructure | 28% | 1 of 67 | 14% | 56 | accepted challenger | ▼−13Since September 2026: 38% → 25%, −13 points. Past the 11-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Data warehouse and reverse ETL for marketing | GTM data and infrastructure | 0% | 78 of 83 | 100% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Hightouch at 40% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automation & iPaaS | 38% | 25% | ▼−13Since September 2026: 38% → 25%, −13 points. Past the 11-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked. | Moved past the floor | Rank 1 of 67, unchanged |
| Warehouse & ETL | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 78 of 83, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Grok 4.20 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Workato is the best overall choice due to its scalability, depth, and B2B-focused integrations.” Mistral Small · Automation & iPaaS · direct prompt · first choice
“Workato is most often named as the overall "best for mid-market and enterprise IT teams running governed integrations"” Muse Glimmer 30B · Automation & iPaaS · direct prompt · first choice
“Workato is the safest and most flexible first choice if you want business teams to automate across apps” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Automation & iPaaS · direct prompt · first choice
“the best *general-purpose* workflow automation and integration platform is usually Workato” Perplexity Sonar · Automation & iPaaS · direct prompt · first choice
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.
“"iPaaS" Tools Used as Reverse ETL (e.g., Zapier, Make, Workato, MuleSoft)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Warehouse & ETL · negative prompt · hard negative
“Caution points are cost and complexity... Overkill for small teams; licensing and implementation costs can be high relative to simpler needs.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Automation & iPaaS · negative prompt · soft negative
“often enterprise-first and can require significant IT involvement ... may be overkill for simple team automation” Perplexity Sonar · Automation & iPaaS · negative prompt · soft negative
“Powerful but expensive (~$2,500+/month...). Better for enterprises with dedicated integration budgets.” Kimi K2 · Automation & iPaaS · direct prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 148 of the 162 answers that named Workato and are not a share of its labels.
310 of the 310 domain citations in answers naming Workato came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case study | 111 | 0 | 2026-02-10 | ||
| Report or ebook | 105 | 19 | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Comparison | 62 | 12 | 2026-09-01 | ||
| Podcast or video | 54 | 0 | 2024-10-01 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 45 | 12 | 2026-09-18 | ||
| Blog | 34 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 19 | 4 | 2026-09-18 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 14 | 0 | 2026-06-29 | ||
| Template or tool | 6 | 1 | 2026-07-08 | ||
| News or press | 4 | 0 | 2021-05-08 |
As the event pages on workato.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
Every page workato.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
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.
Fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · Crunchbase
What Workato's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: workato.com, workato.com/pricing, trust.workato.com, workato.com/platform, workato.com/customers. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Workato'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 Workato, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Workato by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
AI models recommend Workato first in Workflow automation and iPaaS this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.