| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Load balancers | Network and edge | 0% | 38 of 94 | 38% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by HAProxy at 29% |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Managed Cloud Services (e.g., AWS ALB, Azure Front Door): The "Path of Least Resistance." Zero management overhead, auto-scaling included.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Load balancers · scale prompt · alternative
“Cloud-heavy (AWS/Azure/GCP): Native cloud LBs—simple, scalable, no management overhead.” Grok 4.20 · Load balancers · direct prompt · alternative
“if cloud: AWS ALB, Azure LB, GCP” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Load balancers · scale 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.
“If you are tempted to use major clouds like AWS or Google Cloud, be careful... they charge heavily for data egress (outbound bandwidth)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Load balancers · budget prompt · soft negative
“excellent within their ecosystems but can lead to vendor lock-in” Mistral Small · Load balancers · negative prompt · soft negative
“Scales automatically but can add up with traffic” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Load balancers · budget 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 16 of the 19 answers that named AWS ALB and are not a share of its labels.
Sixty-seven of the seventy-five domain citations in answers naming AWS ALB came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 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 AWS ALB's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/kubernetes-ingress-aws-alb-ingress-controller, aws.amazon.com/blogs/containers/app-mesh-integration-with-aws-alb-ingress-controller. 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 AWS ALB'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 AWS ALB, 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 AWS ALB by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: