IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › CrashPlan · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

CrashPlan

6Judge labels

1First choices

2Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CrashPlan was named 2 times in Backup and DR, where Veeam led with 18%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business23 of 110

under the label threshold

Mid-market17 of 121

under the label threshold

Enterprise92 of 99

under the label threshold

In backup and dr · 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 CrashPlan 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
Backup and disaster recovery	Cloud and infrastructure	2%	17 of 121	50%	2	under 10 labels · led by Veeam at 18%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	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	0	0
Mistral Small	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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-constrained2 labels1

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

“making it one of the most cost-effective choices for small businesses” Mistral Small · Backup and DR · budget prompt · first choice

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.

“Warned against with unusual consistency. Code42 exited the consumer market years ago, leaving many users stranded” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Backup and DR · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as CrashPlan, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CrashPlan was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

IDrive Business4 of 62Not in the top three

Backblaze4 of 61Not in the top three

Veeam3 of 61Not in the top three

Cohesity3 of 60Not in the top three

Commvault3 of 60Not in the top three

Druva3 of 60Not in the top three

Rubrik3 of 60Not in the top three

Unitrends3 of 60Not in the top three

Acronis Cyber Protect2 of 61Not in the top three

Axcient x360Recover2 of 60Not 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 CrashPlan. 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 5 of the 6 answers that named CrashPlan and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

hyperconvergence.com3

ifeeltech.com3

listicler.com3

axcient.com2

comparisec.com2

consilien.com2

reddit.com2

19pine.ai1

apollotechnical.com1

b2bsalescafe.wordpress.com1

Twenty of the twenty domain citations in answers naming CrashPlan came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

hyperconvergence.com/best-backup-and-disaster-recovery-solutions-for-smbs3

ifeeltech.com/blog/best-cloud-backup-small-business3

listicler.com/best/best-backup-disaster-recovery-small-businesses3

axcient.com/blog/backup-and-disaster-recovery-solutions2

comparisec.com/vendors/backup-dr2

consilien.com/news/best-cloud-backup-solutions-smb-20262

n2ws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gartner-reprint-backup-06_201606141436.pdf1

wikibon.org/groupdocs/9_640815164.pdf1

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 CrashPlan'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 CrashPlan, 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 crashplan.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.