Every category where a model named Neo4j 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
NoSQL databases	Data platform	2%	7 of 72	8%	25	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Neo4j 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 Neo4j 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	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	1	1	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	3	0	3
Mistral Small	0	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	0	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	3	0	1	4
Kimi K2	0	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	2	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	2	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

Direct5 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative24 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained1 label1

Scale-constrained17 labelsNone

Negative16 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative64 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 2 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.

“Connected/relationship data → Neo4j” DeepSeek V4 Flash · NoSQL · comparative prompt · first choice

“such as RavenDB, Neo4j, or InfluxDB” Llama 4 Maverick · NoSQL · budget prompt · first choice

“Neo4j is the leading graph database, built specifically to navigate relationships.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · NoSQL · comparative prompt · alternative

“Choose Neo4j if you are trying to find connections between people or things.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · NoSQL · 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.

“Graph Databases (e.g., Neo4j) (Be Cautious): ... steep learning curves ... notoriously difficult and expensive to scale horizontally” Gemini 3.5 Flash · NoSQL · negative prompt · soft negative

“Hardware Hunger: Neo4j is resource-intensive. It requires significant JVM tuning” Qwen 3.7 Flash · NoSQL · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Neo4j, over the 64 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Neo4j was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

MongoDB61 of 6432Not in the top three

Redis56 of 641Not in the top three

Amazon DynamoDB55 of 644Not in the top three

Apache Cassandra54 of 641Not in the top three

Couchbase43 of 642Not in the top three

ScyllaDB31 of 640Not in the top three

Azure Cosmos DB27 of 641Not in the top three

Apache HBase19 of 640Not in the top three

PostgreSQL15 of 644Not in the top three

Amazon Neptune10 of 640Not 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 Neo4j. 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 39 of the 64 answers that named Neo4j and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

aerospike.com23

pingcap.com15

thectoclub.com15

mongodb.com12

couchbase.com11

db-engines.com10

scylladb.com10

sourceforge.net10

guideflow.com9

infoworld.com9

124 of the 124 domain citations in answers naming Neo4j came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

aerospike.com/blog/ten-best-nosql-cloud-databases22

pingcap.com/article/top-10-nosql-databases-to-consider-202415

thectoclub.com/tools/best-nosql-database15

guideflow.com/blog/nosql-database-software9

couchbase.com/blog/nosql-database-evaluation-guide8

db-engines.com/en/ranking8

peerspot.com/categories/nosql-databases8

infoworld.com/article/2262040/the-best-nosql-databases.html7

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 Neo4j'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 Neo4j, 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 neo4j.com 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.