| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer identity and access management | Identity and access | 0% | 17 of 70 | 35% | 31 | criticized challenger | ▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Workforce identity and SSO | Identity and access | 0% | 16 of 44 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Entra ID at 46% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIAM | 4% | 0% | ▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 9 → 17 of 70 |
| Workforce identity | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 16 of 44, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“It can be a good cloud-native building block, though teams should assess whether its customization and admin experience meet their needs.” GPT-6 Luna · CIAM · comparative prompt · alternative
“AWS-native, cost-effective pay-per-use; ... Best for AWS ecosystems but may need workarounds for advanced features.” Grok 4.20 · CIAM · comparative prompt · alternative
“Choose Amazon Cognito if you are building a new application on AWS and want to minimize infrastructure costs.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CIAM · comparative prompt · alternative
“Choose Amazon Cognito instead if your company already uses AWS and has engineers comfortable with it.” GPT-6 Luna · CIAM · budget prompt · alternative
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.
“Avoid Cognito if your development team wants to move fast with modern, out-of-the-box UI components and smooth SDKs.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CIAM · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid AWS Cognito for new projects — they recently reduced free tier from 50K to 10K MAU and tripled pricing” Kimi K2 · CIAM · budget prompt · hard negative
“it is only recommended if your entire application stack is already within AWS. Otherwise, it may not be the best standalone solution” Mistral Small · CIAM · negative prompt · soft negative
“a reasonable starting point for AWS teams with simple auth needs, which implies caution for more complex CIAM programs” Perplexity Sonar · CIAM · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 91 of the 99 answers that named Amazon Cognito and are not a share of its labels.
358 of the 358 domain citations in answers naming Amazon Cognito came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
What Amazon Cognito's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: aws.amazon.com/cognito. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Amazon Cognito'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 Amazon Cognito, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Amazon Cognito by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: