Every category where a model named Google Cloud Pub/Sub 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
Streaming platforms	Data platform	0%	15 of 78	19%	27	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Google Cloud Pub/Sub 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 Google Cloud Pub/Sub 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	1	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	2	0	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	2	0	1	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	1	1	3
Mistral Small	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	2	1	0	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	3	0	1	4
Kimi K2	2	0	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	1	0	2

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

Direct7 labels1

Paraphrase10 labelsNone

Comparative25 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained14 labels1

Scale-constrained15 labelsNone

Negative17 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative88 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 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.

“Offers a free tier with reasonable limits, making it good for testing and small-scale applications.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Streaming · budget prompt · alternative

“Google Cloud: Pub/Sub if you value simplicity and autoscaling over Kafka portability” GPT-5.4 mini · Streaming · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Google Cloud Pub/Sub or Amazon Kinesis are strong low-cost managed options” Perplexity Sonar · Streaming · budget prompt · alternative

“Best for: Cloud-native applications needing high throughput and low latency.” Mistral Small · Streaming · comparative 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.

“Pub/Sub excels in throughput/latency but lacks Kafka's ecosystem depth for complex processing” Grok 4.1 Fast · Streaming · negative prompt · soft negative

“better treated as redesign choices than drop-in Kafka replacements” Perplexity Sonar · Streaming · negative prompt · soft negative

“be cautious with AWS Kinesis or Google Pub/Sub” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Streaming · negative prompt · soft negative

“it may be limited to Google Cloud environments” Llama 4 Maverick · Streaming · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Google Cloud Pub/Sub, over the 87 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Google Cloud Pub/Sub was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Amazon Kinesis Data Streams72 of 874Not in the top three

Apache Kafka70 of 8730Not in the top three

Confluent Cloud67 of 8726Not in the top three

Redpanda66 of 8714Not in the top three

Azure Event Hubs60 of 871Not in the top three

Apache Pulsar49 of 872Not in the top three

Amazon MSK40 of 873Not in the top three

Aiven for Apache Kafka24 of 873Not in the top three

RabbitMQ19 of 870Not in the top three

NATS JetStream14 of 870Not 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 Google Cloud Pub/Sub. 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 66 of the 87 answers that named Google Cloud Pub/Sub and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

guideflow.com40

devopsschool.com37

automq.com33

confluent.io27

cotocus.com23

gartner.com22

risingwave.com19

gravitee.io18

bestdevops.com17

eltherion.com16

252 of the 252 domain citations in answers naming Google Cloud Pub/Sub came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

guideflow.com/blog/event-streaming-software40

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-event-streaming-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison34

automq.com/blog/top-10-event-streaming-platforms-confluent-msk-redpanda-alternatives27

cotocus.com/blog/top-10-event-streaming-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison22

gartner.com/reviews/market/event-stream-processing22

gravitee.io/blog/best-event-streaming-solutions18

bestdevops.com/top-10-event-streaming-platforms-tools-in-2025-features-pros-cons-compariso17

eltherion.com/blog/event-streaming-architecture-kafka-kinesis-pulsar16

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Google Cloud Pub/Sub

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

Google Pub/Sub 9GCP Pub/Sub 2Pub/Sub 2

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 Google Cloud Pub/Sub'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 Google Cloud Pub/Sub, 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 google.dev 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.