Every category where a model named Appian 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
Workflow orchestration	Data platform	0%	82 of 86	50%	8	under 10 labels · led by Prefect at 24%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative10 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative10 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative27 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“| Pega/Appian | BPM/compliance | Enterprise quote | Low-code BPMN | Heavier setup |” Grok 4.1 Fast · Orchestration · scale prompt · soft negative

“can be cumbersome or too expensive for smaller teams or simpler workflows” Mistral Small · Orchestration · negative prompt · soft negative

“These came up repeatedly as tools to approach with caution” MiniMax M2.5 · Orchestration · negative prompt · soft negative

“Scales without $50K+ contracts like Workato/Appian” Grok 4.1 Fast · Orchestration · direct prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Appian, over the 27 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Appian was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pega24 of 271Not in the top three

ServiceNow23 of 271Not in the top three

Apache Airflow20 of 273Not in the top three

Camunda18 of 271Not in the top three

Temporal18 of 270Not in the top three

Zapier16 of 273Not in the top three

Prefect13 of 270Not in the top three

n8n12 of 271Not in the top three

Dagster12 of 270Not in the top three

Make11 of 272Not 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 Appian. 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 26 of the 27 answers that named Appian and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

enate.io24

elementum.ai22

zapier.com19

teamwork.com17

reddit.com14

thedigitalprojectmanager.com12

wrike.com11

betasystems.com10

devopsschool.com9

moxo.com8

146 of the 146 domain citations in answers naming Appian came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

enate.io/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools24

elementum.ai/blog/best-workflow-orchestration-tools22

zapier.com/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools19

teamwork.com/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools17

thedigitalprojectmanager.com/tools/workflow-orchestration-tools11

wrike.com/workflow-guide/workflow-orchestration-tools11

betasystems.com/resources/blog/enterprise-workflow-tools10

reddit.com/r/ITManagers/comments/1soh54t/enterprise_workflow_orchestration_platforms10

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Appian

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

Pega/Appian 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 Appian'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 Appian, 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 appian.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.