Index › Products › BIND · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

BIND

14Judge labels

0First choices

10Negative labels

8 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. BIND was named 4 times in DDI and IPAM, where BlueCat Micetro led with 15%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business98 of 103

under the label threshold

Mid-market95 of 115

under the label threshold

Enterprise83 of 83

under the label threshold

In ddi and ipam · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named BIND 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	Since September 2026
DDI and IP address management	Network and edge	0%	95 of 115	50%	4	under 10 labels · led by BlueCat Micetro at 15%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for BIND yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated BIND across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative10 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative14 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Choose Open Source (BIND/Kea) if you have limited budget but high technical staffing.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DDI and IPAM · comparative prompt · alternative

“BIND/PowerDNS for DNS” GPT-5.4 mini · DDI and IPAM · budget 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.

“managing DNS and DHCP via separate tools (like Microsoft DNS alone) or using spreadsheets for IPAM ... Verdict: Avoid” GLM 4.7 FlashX · DDI and IPAM · negative prompt · hard negative

“Not "vendors to avoid" but architectures to move away from at enterprise scale” Kimi K2 · DDI and IPAM · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as BIND, over the 14 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BIND was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

BlueCat Integrity11 of 143Not among the top eight

Infoblox10 of 142Not among the top eight

EfficientIP SOLIDserver7 of 143Not among the top eight

ISC DHCP7 of 140Not among the top eight

ManageEngine DDI Central4 of 140Not among the top eight

phpIPAM4 of 140Not among the top eight

NetBox3 of 141Not among the top eight

VitalQIP3 of 141Not among the top eight

Microsoft DNS3 of 140Not among the top eight

PowerDNS3 of 140Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 BIND. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 13 of the 14 answers that named BIND and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

bluecatnetworks.com10

g2.com7

infoblox.com6

slashdot.org5

us.fitgap.com5

efficientip.com4

peerspot.com4

rajeshkumar.xyz4

scmgalaxy.com4

bestdevops.com3

No domain is on file for BIND, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

bluecatnetworks.com/blog/four-steps-to-succeed-with-your-ddi-solution7

bluecatnetworks.com/resources/nine-reasons-to-unify-your-ddi5

slashdot.org/software/ddi-management5

rajeshkumar.xyz/blog/ddi-dns-dhcp-ipam-platforms4

scmgalaxy.com/tutorials/top-10-ddi-dns-dhcp-ipam-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison4

us.fitgap.com/search/ddi-management-platform/enterprise4

bestdevops.com/top-10-ddi-dns-dhcp-ipam-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison3

bluecatnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DDI-Maturity-Report-Drives-Multi-Cloud-Auto3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where BIND stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 33,100 a month (“bind”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 99,561 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 95 of 115 in DDI and IPAM

Segment leader

15%

BlueCat Micetro

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 14 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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.

Names read as BIND

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

BIND/Kea 1BIND/PowerDNS 1

Follow BIND

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.

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 BIND'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 BIND, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for BIND by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where BIND is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name BIND, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.