Every category where a model named GoToMeeting 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	Since September 2026
Video conferencing	IT operations and endpoint	0%	37 of 50	45%	11	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for GoToMeeting yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated GoToMeeting across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1	2
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase5 labelsNone

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative13 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative28 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“GoToMeeting and Zoom - both perform well and are suitable for mid-to-large businesses.” Llama 4 Maverick · Video conferencing · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Best for: Traditional businesses wanting an all-in-one hardware/software solution.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Video conferencing · scale prompt · alternative

“Focused on professional meetings with good screen sharing and recording features” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Video conferencing · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Best for fast, easy setup; solid reliability; simpler feature set” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Video conferencing · 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.

“This platform has had security vulnerabilities in the past and is not as transparent about encryption and data handling as some competitors.” Mistral Small · Video conferencing · negative prompt · hard negative

“No multi-factor authentication option” Kimi K2 · Video conferencing · negative prompt · hard negative

“Some users specifically avoid vendors with known government/military contracts (e.g., certain iterations of WebEx or GoToMeeting)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Video conferencing · negative prompt · soft negative

“Why cautious: No multi-factor authentication option” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Video conferencing · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as GoToMeeting, over the 28 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and GoToMeeting was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Zoom Workplace26 of 2811Not among the top eight

Google Meet25 of 283Not among the top eight

Microsoft24 of 286Not among the top eight

Cisco Webex18 of 280Not among the top eight

Jitsi Meet8 of 280Not among the top eight

Skype for Business7 of 280Not among the top eight

Signal6 of 283Not among the top eight

RingCentral6 of 280Not among the top eight

WhatsApp5 of 280Not among the top eight

Slack Huddles4 of 280Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 GoToMeeting. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 26 of the 28 answers that named GoToMeeting and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

getvoip.com12

uk.pcmag.com10

kaspersky.com9

ethicalconsumer.org8

usa.kaspersky.com8

dergipark.org.tr7

techradar.com7

trueconf.com7

guideflow.com6

jabra.com6

No domain is on file for GoToMeeting, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

getvoip.com/web-conferencing10

kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/video-conferencing-security-how-to-stay-safe9

ethicalconsumer.org/technology/shopping-guide/video-conferencing8

uk.pcmag.com/cloud-services/9067/the-best-video-conferencing-software8

dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/47285497

techradar.com/pro/12-alternatives-to-google-meet-for-better-privacy-fewer-limitations-and-7

guideflow.com/blog/video-conferencing-software-teams6

jabra.com/discover/hybrid-meeting-solutions/video-conferencing-platforms6

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where GoToMeeting stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 2,900 a month (“gotomeeting”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 347 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 37 of 50 in video conferencing

Segment leader

42%

Zoom Workplace

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 28 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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.

Names read as GoToMeeting

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

GoToMeeting / GoToConnect 1

Follow GoToMeeting

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.

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 GoToMeeting'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 GoToMeeting, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for GoToMeeting by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where GoToMeeting is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name GoToMeeting, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.