Data catalogs and governance · October 2026 Edition
Secoda vs Amundsen
Four of fourteen models named Secoda first on the direct prompt; zero named Amundsen. Secoda was named by ten of the fourteen models and Amundsen by seven and Secoda carries 18 labels and Amundsen 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Amundsen
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share11%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%33%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels1812A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Secoda 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 Secoda · Atlan vs Amundsen · 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.
SecodaFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAmundsenDirect401 against Amundsen
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained121 against Amundsen
Scale-constrained101 against Amundsen
Negative101 against Amundsen
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 Secoda and Amundsen 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 |
SecodaAM Amundsen first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Secoda on the left and Amundsen on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Secoda and Amundsen stood in it.
Secoda first, Amundsen not the choice
4 of 14 modelsAmundsen was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.DeepSeek V4 FlashSecoda alternatives: Atlan, DataHub
Kimi K2Secoda alternatives: Atlan, OvalEdge, Select Star
GLM 4.7 FlashXAtlan, Secoda, Select Star alternatives: Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud, OvalEdge, data.world
MiniMax M2.5Atlan, Secoda alternatives: Alation, Microsoft Purview
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashSelect Star alternatives: Atlan, Coalesce Catalog, OvalEdge, Secoda
Grok 4.1 FastAtlan alternatives: Alation, OvalEdge, Secoda
GPT-6 LunaAtlan alternatives: Microsoft Purview, OpenMetadata, Secoda
Neither was named
7 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
Perplexity SonarAtlan alternatives: Alation, OvalEdge, Select Star
Mistral SmallAtlan, OvalEdge
Llama 4 MaverickAtlan
Qwen 3.7 FlashAtlan alternatives: AWS DataZone, DataHub, Google Dataplex, OvalEdge, Seceda
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
Secoda leads by sixteen points.
Secoda16%#2 of 16Amundsen0%#12 of 16
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Secoda0%#11 of 11Amundsen0%#– of 11
The full enterprise standing →What the models said about Secoda
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Best low-cost SaaS option: Secoda for small or early-stage teams... Secoda is the strongest SaaS candidate for small teams” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
“Secoda and Select Star are incredibly fast to stand up (1–2 weeks) and highly intuitive for lean teams.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Secoda is the strongest recommendation” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
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
Also compared
Atlan vs SecodaAtlan vs AmundsenOpenMetadata vs SecodaOpenMetadata vs AmundsenSecoda vs OvalEdgeSecoda vs DataHubSecoda vs Select StarSecoda vs Microsoft PurviewOvalEdge vs AmundsenDataHub vs AmundsenSelect Star vs AmundsenAmundsen 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.