Every category where a model named Gloo Gateway 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
API gateways	Developer platform	0%	10 of 51	0%	9	under 10 labels · led by Kong Gateway at 61%
API management	Developer platform	0%	25 of 55	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Kong Gateway at 37%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	3	0	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
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	2	3

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

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative7 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative21 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.

“Gloo Gateway (Solo.io): Built on Envoy. Highly recommended if your engineering team is heavily committed to Kubernetes and GitOps.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · API gateways · scale prompt · alternative

“alternatives like Kong, Tyk, Gravitee, or Solo.io are often mentioned as more flexible options” MiniMax M2.5 · API management · negative prompt · alternative

“You’re Kubernetes‑native and want auto‑discovery with minimal ops → Traefik or Solo.io Gloo Gateway” GLM 4.7 FlashX · API gateways · comparative prompt · alternative

“lightweight alternatives like KrakenD, Apache APISIX, or Gloo Edge” Gemini 3.5 Flash · API gateways · negative 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Gloo Gateway, over the 21 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Gloo Gateway was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Apigee20 of 211Not in the top three

Kong Gateway19 of 217Not in the top three

Amazon API Gateway19 of 210Not in the top three

Tyk17 of 211Not in the top three

Azure API Management13 of 210Not in the top three

Apache APISIX11 of 213Not in the top three

MuleSoft Anypoint Platform10 of 210Not in the top three

Traefik8 of 210Not in the top three

Zuplo6 of 211Not in the top three

Envoy3 of 210Not 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 Gloo Gateway. 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 15 of the 21 answers that named Gloo Gateway and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

zuplo.com11

api7.ai10

geekflare.com9

solo.io6

toolradar.com6

digitalapi.ai5

dupple.com5

guideflow.com5

debugg.ai4

gartner.com4

Sixty-five of the sixty-five domain citations in answers naming Gloo Gateway came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

geekflare.com/guides/best-api-gateways9

api7.ai/top-11-api-gateways-platforms-compared8

toolradar.com/guides/best-api-gateways6

dupple.com/learn/best-api-gateways5

solo.io/blog/avoid-apigee-api-gateway5

debugg.ai/resources/best-api-gateway-tools-developers-20244

guideflow.com/blog/api-gateway-software4

konghq.com/blog/enterprise/kong-vs-aws-api-gateway4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Gloo Gateway

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

Solo.io Gloo Gateway 4Gloo 3Gloo Edge 1Solo.io 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 Gloo Gateway'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 Gloo Gateway, 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 gloo.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.