Data catalogs and governance · October 2026 Edition
Amundsen vs Microsoft Purview
Zero of fourteen models named Amundsen first on the direct prompt; zero named Microsoft Purview. Amundsen was named by seven of the fourteen models and Microsoft Purview by thirteen and Amundsen carries 12 labels and Microsoft Purview 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Amundsen
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
Named in nine categories this edition.
First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate33%14%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#7#8A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels1235A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Amundsen reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Atlan was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Atlan vs Amundsen · Atlan vs Microsoft Purview · OpenMetadata vs Amundsen
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the data catalogs and governance page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AmundsenFirst choices, of fourteen modelsMicrosoft Purview
Direct001 against Amundsen
Paraphrase01
Comparative00
Budget-constrained201 against Amundsen
Scale-constrained001 against Amundsen
Negative001 against Amundsen · 5 against Microsoft Purview
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Amundsen and Microsoft Purview stood in it.
| Model | DirectAM | ParaphraseAM | ComparativeAM | Budget-constrainedAM | Scale-constrainedAM | NegativeAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | AM | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | ||||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | AM | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | AM | | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | AM | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | AM | AM | ||
| Kimi K2 | | | | |||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | |||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | |
AM Amundsen Microsoft PurviewAM first choiceAM named as an alternativeAM argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Amundsen on the left and Microsoft Purview on the right.
Microsoft PurviewAM first choiceAM named as an alternativeAM argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Amundsen on the left and Microsoft Purview on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Amundsen and Microsoft Purview stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.MiniMax M2.5Atlan, Secoda alternatives: Alation, Microsoft Purview
GPT-6 LunaAtlan alternatives: Microsoft Purview, OpenMetadata, Secoda
Neither was named
12 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Atlan alternatives: Alation, OvalEdge
GPT-5.4 miniDataHub alternatives: Alation, DataGalaxy
Gemini 3.5 FlashSelect Star alternatives: Atlan, Coalesce Catalog, OvalEdge, Secoda
Perplexity SonarAtlan alternatives: Alation, OvalEdge, Select Star
Grok 4.1 FastAtlan alternatives: Alation, OvalEdge, Secoda
Mistral SmallAtlan, OvalEdge
DeepSeek V4 FlashSecoda alternatives: Atlan, DataHub
Llama 4 MaverickAtlan
Qwen 3.7 FlashAtlan alternatives: AWS DataZone, DataHub, Google Dataplex, OvalEdge, Seceda
Kimi K2Secoda alternatives: Atlan, OvalEdge, Select Star
GLM 4.7 FlashXAtlan, Secoda, Select Star alternatives: Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud, OvalEdge, data.world
Muse Glimmer 30BAtlan alternatives: Alation, OvalEdge
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Microsoft Purview leads by seven points.
Microsoft Purview7%#6 of 16Amundsen0%#12 of 16
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Amundsen leads at mid-market.
Amundsen4%#7 of 15
Microsoft Purview2%#8 of 15Enterprise
The order flips: Microsoft Purview leads at enterprise.
Microsoft Purview6%#4 of 11Amundsen0%#– of 11
The full enterprise standing →What the models said about Amundsen
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Avoid for Mid-Market: ... open-source like DataHub/Amundsen (free but needs engineering overhead)” Grok 4.1 Fast · direct prompt · hard negative
“Amundsen (Lyft) — archived and no longer maintained as of 2026, so don't build on it” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“have lower license costs but require significant DevOps effort to install, maintain, and keep running” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · soft negative
“likely to be an open-source tool such as Amundsen or DataHub, which are suitable for on-premise environments” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
“Best ultra-lean choice: Amundsen” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Microsoft Purview
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“user feedback and reviews frequently highlight immense friction, spotty lineage, and high database scanning costs when trying to integrate Purview with non-Microsoft environments” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
Also compared
Atlan vs AmundsenAtlan vs Microsoft PurviewOpenMetadata vs AmundsenOpenMetadata vs Microsoft PurviewSecoda vs AmundsenSecoda vs Microsoft PurviewOvalEdge vs AmundsenOvalEdge vs Microsoft PurviewDataHub vs AmundsenDataHub vs Microsoft PurviewSelect Star vs AmundsenSelect Star vs Microsoft PurviewAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full data catalogs standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.