Index › Vendors › YOOSE · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

YOOSE

13Judge labels

0First 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.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. YOOSE was named 3 times in Proximity, where Radar led with 19%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business32 of 147

under the label threshold

Mid-market29 of 131

under the label threshold

Enterprise82 of 101

under the label threshold

In proximity · 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 YOOSE 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
Retail, proximity and IoT marketing	Marketing	0%	29 of 131	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Radar at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for YOOSE 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 YOOSE across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“YOOSE — strong if your main need is location-based campaigns.” Perplexity Sonar · Proximity · budget prompt · alternative

“Best Predictable Alternative: YOOSE ... is a strong contender” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Proximity · budget prompt · alternative

“Top for campaigns/personalization.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Proximity · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as YOOSE, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and YOOSE was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Propulso10 of 134Not in the top three

Radar8 of 132Not in the top three

Kontakt.io8 of 131Not in the top three

Foursquare7 of 131Not in the top three

PlotProjects6 of 132Not in the top three

Estimote5 of 130Not in the top three

GroundTruth4 of 130Not in the top three

Bluedot3 of 130Not in the top three

PromoInCloud3 of 130Not in the top three

Yext3 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 YOOSE. 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 2 of the 13 answers that named YOOSE and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

clicksgeek.com2

f6s.com2

mobileappdaily.com2

mobilozophy.com2

thecmo.com2

axiobench.com1

clevertap.com1

databox.com1

g2.com1

gartner.com1

No domain is on file for YOOSE, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

clicksgeek.com/best-advertising-platforms2

clicksgeek.com/best-ppc-platforms-for-local-business2

f6s.com/software/category/proximity-marketing2

mobileappdaily.com/products/top-proximity-marketing-apps2

mobilozophy.com/products/automation/engagement/proximity-marketing-platform-new2

thecmo.com/tools/best-proximity-marketing-software2

axiobench.com/best/proximity-marketing-software1

clevertap.com/blog/location-based-marketing-platform1

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 YOOSE'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 YOOSE, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.