Every category where a model named Buildkite 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
CI/CD platforms	Developer platform	0%	7 of 45	19%	21	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	2	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	2	2	0	4
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	3	0	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	3	1	4
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	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

Direct9 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative12 labelsNone

Budget-constrained11 labels3

Scale-constrained11 labelsNone

Negative12 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative55 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 3 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.

“Safer Bets: GitLab (all-in-one), Buildkite (your infra), or ArgoCD/Tekton (K8s-native) have fewer red flags lately.” Grok 4.1 Fast · CI/CD · negative prompt · alternative

“a hybrid model: the orchestration layer is managed, but execution agents are under your control” Perplexity Sonar · CI/CD · comparative prompt · alternative

“Hybrid (you own compute) ... often the sweet spot for regulated or cost-sensitive mid-size orgs” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CI/CD · scale prompt · alternative

“Look at Jenkins (if you have dedicated platform engineering), CircleCI, or Buildkite.” Kimi K2 · CI/CD · scale 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.

“Buildkite or Jenkins, though they generally require more platform ownership” GPT-5.4 mini · CI/CD · direct prompt · soft negative

“pricing model is based on per-user usage and requires supplying agents” Llama 4 Maverick · CI/CD · negative prompt · soft negative

“Powerful, but generally better for teams with a bit more budget.” GPT-5.4 mini · CI/CD · budget prompt · soft negative

“Weaknesses: Higher cost, more complex to set up” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CI/CD · comparative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Buildkite, over the 55 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Buildkite was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GitLab CI/CD54 of 5510Not in the top three

GitHub Actions52 of 5530Not in the top three

CircleCI50 of 551Not in the top three

Jenkins49 of 552Not in the top three

JetBrains TeamCity24 of 550Not in the top three

Azure DevOps21 of 550Not in the top three

Harness13 of 550Not in the top three

Semaphore10 of 550Not in the top three

Azure Pipelines8 of 550Not in the top three

Bitbucket Pipelines7 of 550Not 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 Buildkite. 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 50 of the 55 answers that named Buildkite and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

toolradar.com28

deployhq.com26

devopsness.com22

blog.jetbrains.com21

octopus.com18

checkthat.ai17

circleci.com17

devopsplatforms.com16

technologymatch.com13

cicdcalculator.com11

189 of the 189 domain citations in answers naming Buildkite came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

deployhq.com/blog/best-ci-cd-software-top-10-tools-to-know-in-202526

toolradar.com/blog/best-ci-cd-tools26

devopsness.com/blog/best-cicd-platforms20

blog.jetbrains.com/teamcity/2026/03/best-ci-tools17

checkthat.ai/answers/what-are-the-best-ci-cd-tools16

devopsplatforms.com/buying-guides/best-ci-cd-platforms15

octopus.com/devops/ci-cd/ci-cd-tools-for-enterprise13

technologymatch.com/blog/jenkins-vs-gitlab-ci-vs-circleci-vs-github-actions-the-ci-cd-deci13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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 Buildkite'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 Buildkite, 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 buildkite.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.