Data catalogs and governance · October 2026 Edition
OpenMetadata vs Microsoft Purview
Zero of fourteen models named OpenMetadata first on the direct prompt; zero named Microsoft Purview. OpenMetadata was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Microsoft Purview by thirteen and OpenMetadata carries 27 labels and Microsoft Purview 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in nine categories this edition.
First-choice share18%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate7%14%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#8A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels2735A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, OpenMetadata 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 OpenMetadata · Atlan vs Microsoft Purview · OpenMetadata vs Secoda
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.
OpenMetadataFirst choices, of fourteen modelsMicrosoft Purview
Direct00
Paraphrase01
Comparative00
Budget-constrained100
Scale-constrained001 against OpenMetadata
Negative001 against OpenMetadata · 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 OpenMetadata and Microsoft Purview stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
OpenMetadata Microsoft Purview first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OpenMetadata on the left and Microsoft Purview on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OpenMetadata 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
OpenMetadata leads by eleven points.
OpenMetadata18%#1 of 16Microsoft Purview7%#6 of 16Mid-marketThe figures above
OpenMetadata leads by sixteen points.
OpenMetadata18%#2 of 15Microsoft Purview2%#8 of 15Enterprise
The order flips: Microsoft Purview leads at enterprise.
Microsoft Purview6%#4 of 11OpenMetadata4%#5 of 11What the models said about OpenMetadata
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“While open source options like OpenMetadata and DataHub are credible, they require substantial in-house engineering expertise to deploy, maintain, and scale.” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“Only choose this if you have a dedicated data platform engineer who has the bandwidth to manage and upgrade the infrastructure.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · soft negative
“OpenMetadata is generally the better starting point due to its simpler stack and faster time-to-value.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“OpenMetadata (Best Overall Open Source) ... this is widely considered the best open-source data catalog” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“The Best All-Around (Open Source): OpenMetadata ... this is currently the top contender.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · 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 OpenMetadataAtlan vs Microsoft PurviewOpenMetadata vs SecodaOpenMetadata vs OvalEdgeOpenMetadata vs DataHubOpenMetadata vs Select StarOpenMetadata vs AmundsenSecoda vs Microsoft PurviewOvalEdge vs Microsoft PurviewDataHub vs Microsoft PurviewSelect Star vs Microsoft PurviewAmundsen 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.