Every category where a model named ID.me 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
Identity verification	Identity and access	0%	61 of 61	82%	11	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ID.me 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 ID.me 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	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	1	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	1	1

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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative14 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative17 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.

“Best for: Government services and large US consumer platforms” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Identity verification · 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.

“Privacy Issues: Uses facial recognition technology that has been shown to have racial bias and disproportionate impact on people of color” MiniMax M2.5 · Identity verification · negative prompt · hard negative

“High complaint volumes (1,460+ BBB in 3 years; mixed Trustpilot ~3/5). Issues include service failures, poor support, billing disputes” Grok 4.1 Fast · Identity verification · negative prompt · hard negative

“ID.me ... has faced multiple class-action lawsuits for violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Identity verification · negative prompt · hard negative

“This service has over 1,400 complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau in just three years.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Identity verification · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ID.me, over the 17 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ID.me was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Persona11 of 170Not among the top eight

Veriff7 of 170Not among the top eight

AU10TIX6 of 170Not among the top eight

Sumsub6 of 170Not among the top eight

Jumio5 of 171Not among the top eight

IDMerit5 of 170Not among the top eight

Onfido5 of 170Not among the top eight

IDScan.net3 of 170Not among the top eight

Trulioo3 of 170Not among the top eight

Socure2 of 171Not 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 ID.me. 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 16 of the 17 answers that named ID.me and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

jumio.com7

zyphe.com6

checkin.com5

trustpilot.com5

au10tix.com4

foxnews.com4

gartner.com4

idenfy.com4

linkedin.com4

nelp.org4

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

Pages cited

checkin.com/blog/online-identity-verification-services5

foxnews.com/tech/idme-safe-use-need-know4

gartner.com/reviews/market/identity-verification4

jumio.com/compare-identity-verification-methods4

zyphe.com/resources/blog/kyc-idv-breach-tracker4

aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/three-key-problems-with-the-governments-use-of-a-flawed-f3

au10tix.com/blog/au10tix-clarifies-past-security-event-no-evidence-of-data-exposure-or-cus3

jumio.com/online-identity-verification-mistakes3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

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

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 1,000,000 a month (“id.me”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 9,491 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 61 of 61 in identity verification

Segment leader

21%

Persona

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 17 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.

Follow ID.me

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 ID.me'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 ID.me, 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 ID.me by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where ID.me 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 ID.me, 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.