Every category where a model named AlloyDB for PostgreSQL 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
Managed relational databases	Data platform	2%	9 of 73	0%	13	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	1	2
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	1

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

Direct5 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labels1

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“Start with AWS RDS/Aurora or Google Cloud SQL for balance—proven for companies your size.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Managed databases · scale prompt · first choice

“high-performance, fully PostgreSQL-compatible service designed for heavy transactional and analytical (HTAP) workloads” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Managed databases · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for: GCP-native companies with heavy analytical or hybrid transactional/analytical (HTAP) workloads.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Managed databases · direct prompt · alternative

“High‑throughput PostgreSQL with read‑pool scaling: AlloyDB” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Managed databases · 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 AlloyDB for PostgreSQL, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AlloyDB for PostgreSQL was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Amazon Aurora21 of 258Not in the top three

Google Cloud SQL20 of 252Not in the top three

Azure SQL Database19 of 251Not in the top three

Amazon RDS18 of 2511Not in the top three

Google Cloud Spanner9 of 250Not in the top three

PlanetScale7 of 251Not in the top three

Azure SQL Managed Instance7 of 250Not in the top three

CockroachDB7 of 250Not in the top three

Neon7 of 250Not in the top three

Oracle Autonomous Database6 of 251Not 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 AlloyDB for PostgreSQL. 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 16 of the 25 answers that named AlloyDB for PostgreSQL and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cloudexpat.com15

tech-insider.org9

algoroq.io8

cloudtoolstack.com6

devtoolreviews.com6

gitnux.org6

infra.furybee.org6

learn.microsoft.com6

g2.com5

aws.amazon.com4

Seventy-one of the seventy-one domain citations in answers naming AlloyDB for PostgreSQL came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cloudexpat.com/compare/rds-vs-azure-sql-vs-cloud-sql15

algoroq.io/compare-tech/rds-vs-cloud-sql-vs-azure-sql8

tech-insider.org/aws-rds-vs-azure-database-vs-google-cloud-sql-20268

cloudtoolstack.com/learn/multi-cloud-database-comparison6

devtoolreviews.com/reviews/aws-rds-vs-google-cloud-sql-vs-azure-database-20266

infra.furybee.org/articles/managed-databases-compared6

gitnux.org/service/managed-database5

wifitalents.com/service/managed-database4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as AlloyDB for PostgreSQL

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as AlloyDB for PostgreSQL; a claim can dispute any of them.

AlloyDB 6AlloyDB Omni 2Google AlloyDB 1Google Cloud AlloyDB 1Google Cloud SQL/AlloyDB/Spanner 1

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 AlloyDB for PostgreSQL'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 AlloyDB for PostgreSQL, 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 alloydb.com 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.