AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › Products › QTS · October 2026 Edition
1 category · Ranked

QTS

21Judge labels
1First choices
0Negative labels
11 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in Colocation for enterprise buyers
Rank 20 of 78 in the mid-market standing
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 6 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business32 of 97
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market20 of 78
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise5 of 67
2%13 labels
accepted challenger
In colocation · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named QTS 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
Colocation providersCloud and infrastructure0%20 of 780%6under 10 labels · led by TierPoint at 22%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for QTS 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 QTS across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini01001
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00101
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00000
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash01001
Kimi K200101
GLM 4.7 FlashX01001
MiniMax M2.500101
GPT-6 Luna00000
Muse Glimmer 30B00000

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
Paraphrase2 labelsNone
Comparative9 labelsNone
Budget-constrained3 labels1
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative1 label1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative21 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.

“QTS is often associated with big, power-dense sites and is a common choice for cloud and AI-oriented capacity needs.” GPT-5.4 mini · Colocation · comparative prompt · alternative
“They are a strong competitor in the US West and Midwest” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Colocation · comparative prompt · alternative
“Purpose-built for high-density GPU deployments.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Colocation · direct 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as QTS, over the 21 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and QTS was named but was not.
ShowHide
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Equinix19 of 2111Not among the top eight
Digital Realty17 of 215Not among the top eight
CyrusOne16 of 210Not among the top eight
CoreSite11 of 210Not among the top eight
Iron Mountain Data Centers8 of 210Not among the top eight
NTT Global Data Centers7 of 210Not among the top eight
DataBank6 of 210Not among the top eight
TierPoint5 of 212Not among the top eight
Flexential4 of 213Not among the top eight
NTT3 of 210Not 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 QTS. 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 18 of the 21 answers that named QTS and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

quotecolo.com11
encoradvisors.com6
guideflow.com6
techradar.com6
dgtlinfra.com5
feeds.sabertoothpro.com5
gartner.com5
blackridgeresearch.com4
colocrossing.com4
coresite.com4

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

Pages cited

quotecolo.com/colocation-providers9
guideflow.com/blog/colocation-services6
techradar.com/news/best-colocation-hosting6
dgtlinfra.com/top-10-colocation-providers5
encoradvisors.com/best-colocation-data-center5
feeds.sabertoothpro.com/blog/best-colocation-service-provider-usa5
gartner.com/reviews/market/colocation-providers5
blackridgeresearch.com/blog/top-colocation-data-center-companies-providers4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where QTS stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates
Searches for its name, Google
18,100 a month (“qts”)
AI search demand for its name, est.
48,168 a month
Its own site
No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition
Share of first choices
0%
rank 20 of 78 in colocation
Segment leader
22%
TierPoint
First choices
1 across its categories
Named in
21 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.

Names read as QTS

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as QTS; a claim can dispute any of them.
QTS (Quality Technology Services) 1QTS / DataBank (ITC) 1

Follow QTS

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

  • where QTS 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 QTS, 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.
The subscriber app

A verification link goes to your work email; an address at the vendor's own domain is approved on the spot, any other is reviewed by hand. Your email is never published. Claiming gives no say over labels, shares, verdicts or which quotes appear.