Four of fourteen models named NGINX first on the direct prompt; two named AWS Elastic Load Balancing. NGINX was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and AWS Elastic Load Balancing by thirteen and NGINX carries 53 labels and AWS Elastic Load Balancing 33, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
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 load balancers page.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, NGINX and AWS Elastic Load Balancing were named in the same answer seventy-seven times, of the 191 answers naming NGINX and the 93 naming AWS Elastic Load Balancing. In those answers AWS Elastic Load Balancing took the first choice eleven times and NGINX ten.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | ||||||
| Perplexity Sonar | AE | |||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | AE | |||||
| Mistral Small | AE | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | ||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | AE | |||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | ||||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | AE | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B |
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.
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“running them on under-powered virtual machines ... creates a bottleneck” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Don't use Nginx for complex load balancing - It's a web server first” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“A well-run software load balancer (HAProxy or NGINX) or a cloud-managed service will give you the performance, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness you need” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“a cloud-based load balancer (if you're in the cloud) or Nginx (if on-premises) represents the best balance of cost, performance, and ease of management” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“The Industry Standard (Flexible & Powerful): NGINX ... If you are moving toward a microservices/Kubernetes architecture, transition to NGINX Ingress.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid cloud-native load balancers (like AWS ALB/ELB) if your budget is tight” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Cloud-native load balancers (AWS ELB, Azure LB, GCP LB) excel in their ecosystems but may lack deep packet inspection” MiniMax M2.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Relies on CloudWatch; tuning timeouts/limits needed.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“Cloud-native load balancers (AWS ALB, Azure LB) are often the best fit - they scale automatically, integrate with your infrastructure, and have predictable costs” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“For very small budgets: Start with cloud-native load balancers (AWS ALB, etc.) as they eliminate upfront costs” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Prefer managed cloud-native: AWS ALB/NLB, GCP Premium/Global, Azure Standard—high reliability scores” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · first choice
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.