Every category where a model named Puppet 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
Infrastructure as code	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	46 of 46	69%	16	criticized challenger
Secrets management	Identity and access	0%	32 of 40	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Doppler at 33%

Movement

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

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

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 labels1

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative11 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative30 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative55 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Tools Often Considered Legacy or Declining (Be Cautious for New Projects)... Avoid for new work: Pure legacy config tools” Grok 4.1 Fast · IaC · negative prompt · hard negative

“Puppet (traditional) — Community Fork, Declining Ecosystem” DeepSeek V4 Flash · IaC · negative prompt · hard negative

“Chef/Puppet for cloud resource provisioning” Kimi K2 · IaC · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid for infrastructure provisioning.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · IaC · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Puppet, over the 54 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Puppet was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Terraform48 of 5423Not in the top three

Pulumi44 of 549Not in the top three

Ansible43 of 549Not in the top three

Chef39 of 540Not in the top three

AWS CloudFormation37 of 540Not in the top three

OpenTofu32 of 5416Not in the top three

SaltStack18 of 540Not in the top three

Crossplane17 of 542Not in the top three

Azure Resource Manager templates16 of 540Not in the top three

Google Cloud Deployment Manager16 of 540Not 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 Puppet. 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 49 of the 54 answers that named Puppet and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

pulumi.com27

spacelift.io27

apiiro.com25

toolradar.com20

reddit.com19

claranet.com18

guideflow.com18

cortex.io15

checkthat.ai13

computingforgeeks.com13

195 of the 195 domain citations in answers naming Puppet came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

apiiro.com/blog/best-iac-tools25

pulumi.com/blog/infrastructure-as-code-tools25

guideflow.com/blog/infrastructure-as-code-tools18

spacelift.io/blog/infrastructure-as-code-tools17

toolradar.com/best/infrastructure-as-code/for/small-businesses17

cortex.io/post/best-infrastructure-as-code-iac-tools15

claranet.com/uk/blog/right-and-wrong-approach-to-infrastructure-code14

checkthat.ai/answers/what-are-the-best-infrastructure-as-code-tools13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Puppet

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

Ansible/Puppet 1Chef/Puppet 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 Puppet'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 Puppet, 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 puppet.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.