Every category where a model named Integrate.io 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
ETL and ELT	Data platform	15%	3 of 66	8%	24	accepted challenger
API management	Developer platform	0%	34 of 55	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Kong Gateway at 37%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Integrate.io 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 Integrate.io across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	2	0	0	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	1	1	3
Mistral Small	1	1	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	0	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	1	2	2	0	5
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	0	1
Kimi K2	1	1	1	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	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

Direct15 labels5

Paraphrase7 labels2

Comparative19 labels3not counted in share

Budget-constrained10 labels8

Scale-constrained7 labels3

Negative5 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative63 labels in all, every segment counted; 18 of the 21 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.

“the best single ETL/ELT tool is Integrate.io if you want the best balance of low-code usability, predictable pricing, and broad mid-market fit” Perplexity Sonar · ETL · direct prompt · first choice

“Integrate.io | Mid-market teams needing balance of features, ease of use, and predictable costs | Fixed-fee, unlimited usage” Kimi K2 · ETL · scale prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend Integrate.io if you want one platform that covers ingestion, transformation, and reverse ETL” Perplexity Sonar · ETL · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Choose Integrate.io for best cost predictability—fixed pricing shines for mid-market” Grok 4.1 Fast · ETL · direct prompt · first choice

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.

“Integrate.io — Predictable but Pricey ... the flat rate may overcharge you at lower volumes” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ETL · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“Simpler no-code for smaller mid-sized, but less robust connectors.” Grok 4.1 Fast · ETL · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Integrate.io, over the 63 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Integrate.io was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Fivetran48 of 6315Compare →

Airbyte45 of 639Compare →

Hevo Data33 of 634Not in the top three

Matillion29 of 630Not in the top three

dbt27 of 631Not in the top three

Stitch24 of 634Not in the top three

Talend22 of 630Not in the top three

Informatica15 of 631Not in the top three

AWS Glue14 of 630Not in the top three

Skyvia14 of 630Not 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 Integrate.io. 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 58 of the 63 answers that named Integrate.io and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

integrate.ioYour site55

hevodata.com36

fivetran.com23

sqream.com22

datacamp.com20

skyvia.com19

g2.com17

dataquest.io16

stacksync.com16

estuary.dev14

183 of the 238 domain citations in answers naming Integrate.io came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

integrate.io/blog/top-7-etl-tools34

sqream.com/blog/best-etl-tools22

datacamp.com/blog/a-list-of-the-16-best-etl-tools-and-why-to-choose-them20

dataquest.io/blog/etl-tools-practical-guide-with-examples16

fivetran.com/learn/etl-tools15

hevodata.com/learn/etl-tools-for-enterprise-data-integration14

stacksync.com/blog/26-best-etl-tools-2025-curated-list13

blog.coupler.io/etl-tools12

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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 Integrate.io'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 Integrate.io, 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 integrate.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.