Every category where a model named Pega 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
Workflow orchestration	Data platform	0%	73 of 86	40%	10	criticized challenger

Movement

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

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	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	0	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labels1

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative15 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative31 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“Pega: Offers regulated BPM with AI decisioning and a robust data model.” Llama 4 Maverick · Orchestration · scale 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.

“Legacy Enterprise BPMs (Pega, older IBM/WebSphere implementations)... Why to avoid: These tools introduce massive bureaucratic overhead” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Orchestration · negative prompt · hard negative

“| Pega/Appian | BPM/compliance | Enterprise quote | Low-code BPMN | Heavier setup |” Grok 4.1 Fast · Orchestration · scale prompt · soft negative

“can be cumbersome or too expensive for smaller teams or simpler workflows” Mistral Small · Orchestration · negative prompt · soft negative

“These came up repeatedly as tools to approach with caution” MiniMax M2.5 · Orchestration · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Pega, over the 31 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Pega was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ServiceNow25 of 312Not in the top three

Apache Airflow24 of 313Not in the top three

Appian24 of 311Not in the top three

Temporal22 of 311Not in the top three

Camunda21 of 311Not in the top three

Zapier19 of 313Not in the top three

Prefect16 of 311Not in the top three

Make15 of 312Not in the top three

n8n15 of 312Not in the top three

Dagster14 of 311Not 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 Pega. 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 28 of the 31 answers that named Pega and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

elementum.ai23

enate.io22

zapier.com19

reddit.com16

teamwork.com16

betasystems.com11

thedigitalprojectmanager.com11

unmeshed.io11

devopsschool.com10

wrike.com9

148 of the 148 domain citations in answers naming Pega came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

elementum.ai/blog/best-workflow-orchestration-tools23

enate.io/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools22

zapier.com/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools19

teamwork.com/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools16

reddit.com/r/ITManagers/comments/1soh54t/enterprise_workflow_orchestration_platforms12

betasystems.com/resources/blog/enterprise-workflow-tools11

unmeshed.io/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools-202611

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-workflow-orchestration-tools-features-pros-cons-comparison10

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Pega

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

Pega/Appian 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 Pega'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 Pega, 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 pega.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.