| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNS filtering | Network and edge | 0% | 94 of 94 | 100% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by DNSFilter at 59% |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
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.
“Problematic Providers to Avoid ... Google's DNS and OpenDNS employ tracking for their specific needs” Claude Haiku 4.5 · DNS filtering · negative prompt · hard negative
“Google Public DNS, if minimizing data collection is your top priority... That's a disclosed tradeoff, not evidence that the service is unsafe.” GPT-6 Luna · DNS filtering · negative prompt · soft negative
“Caution reason: While Google offers encrypted DNS, Google is fundamentally an advertising company that builds user profiles.” MiniMax M2.5 · DNS filtering · negative prompt · soft negative
“For privacy-first use this is usually avoided in favour of resolvers with shorter or no-log policies.” Muse Glimmer 30B · DNS filtering · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 16 of the 16 answers that named Google Public DNS and are not a share of its labels.
Forty-nine of the fifty-five domain citations in answers naming Google Public DNS came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
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 Public DNS'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 Public DNS, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Google Public DNS by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: