Every category where a model named Harness 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
CI/CD platforms	Developer platform	0%	8 of 45	0%	12	accepted challenger
Feature flags	Developer platform	0%	11 of 31	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by LaunchDarkly at 30%
Source control hosting	Developer platform	0%	14 of 23	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by GitHub at 74%

Movement

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

Direct8 labels2

Paraphrase7 labelsNone

Comparative17 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained14 labelsNone

Negative12 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative59 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.

“Specifically built for complex, enterprise-grade CD, automated rollbacks, and cloud cost management.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CI/CD · scale prompt · alternative

“positioned more as an enterprise delivery platform with automation and AI-assisted features” Perplexity Sonar · CI/CD · comparative prompt · alternative

“Harness | CI/CD-native, progressive delivery | Usage-based | Full release platform” Grok 4.1 Fast · Feature flags · scale prompt · alternative

“Harness and Octopus Deploy are built primarily to master the *Deployment* (CD) side.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CI/CD · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Harness, over the 59 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Harness was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GitLab CI/CD38 of 5916Not in the top three

Jenkins36 of 590Not in the top three

GitHub Actions31 of 5914Not in the top three

CircleCI30 of 590Not in the top three

Azure DevOps20 of 591Not in the top three

JetBrains TeamCity18 of 590Not in the top three

LaunchDarkly13 of 596Not in the top three

Buildkite13 of 590Not in the top three

Unleash12 of 590Not in the top three

Argo CD10 of 590Not 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 Harness. 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 45 of the 59 answers that named Harness and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

octopus.com22

toolradar.com22

harness.ioYour site20

blog.jetbrains.com19

checkthat.ai13

deployhq.com10

devopsness.com9

em360tech.com9

in-com.com9

topickz.com9

122 of the 142 domain citations in answers naming Harness came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

blog.jetbrains.com/teamcity/2026/03/best-ci-tools18

octopus.com/devops/ci-cd/ci-cd-tools-for-enterprise18

toolradar.com/blog/best-ci-cd-tools17

checkthat.ai/answers/what-are-the-best-ci-cd-tools11

deployhq.com/blog/best-ci-cd-software-top-10-tools-to-know-in-20259

devopsness.com/blog/best-cicd-platforms9

em360tech.com/top-10/top-enterprise-ci-cd-tools9

in-com.com/blog/top-ci-cd-tools-comparison-for-enterprises-architectures-pipelines-and-del9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Harness

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

Harness (FME) 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 Harness'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 Harness, 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 harness.io 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.