Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 12 → 25 of 84
2 categories · RankedRabbitMQ
41Judge labels
0First choices
17Negative labels
11 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
0% in Streaming for mid-market buyers
Rank 72 of 98 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 43% of its 14 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of RabbitMQ →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business28 of 88
0%17 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market72 of 98
0%14 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise81 of 81
0%9 labels
under the label threshold
In streaming · 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 RabbitMQ 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Streaming platforms | Data platform | 0% | 72 of 98 | 43% | 14 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Telemetry pipelines | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 113 of 124 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by OpenTelemetry Collector at 37% |
Movement
Since September 2026, RabbitMQ held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Streaming · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 61 → 70 of 94
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 45 → 64 of 64
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Streaming | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 61 → 72 of 98 |
| Telemetry pipelines | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 113 of 124, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated RabbitMQ across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated RabbitMQ across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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
Direct3 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative6 labelsNone
Budget-constrained8 labelsNone
Scale-constrained3 labelsNone
Negative21 labels3not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative41 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 3 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.
“consider RabbitMQ instead of an event streaming platform, since it can be cheaper and simpler for smaller workloads” GPT-5.4 mini · Streaming · budget prompt · alternative
“RabbitMQ and NATS are better choices when you need message‑oriented routing” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Streaming · comparative prompt · alternative
“RabbitMQ or Pulsar can be run on a single VM for essentially no licence cost.” MiniMax M2.5 · Streaming · budget prompt · alternative
“Best "Free Software" (High Maintenance): RabbitMQ” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Streaming · budget 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.
“Tools like RabbitMQ or NATS ... should be avoided if your goal is Event Streaming” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Streaming · negative prompt · hard negative
“RabbitMQ also publishes public security advisories, including multiple 2026 advisories affecting specific version ranges.” GPT-5.4 mini · Streaming · negative prompt · soft negative
“be cautious if you need a true event streaming log with multiple consumers rereading the same events” Perplexity Sonar · Streaming · negative prompt · soft negative
“heavy distributed queuing system like Apache Kafka or RabbitMQ just "to be safe."” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Telemetry pipelines · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as RabbitMQ, over the 41 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RabbitMQ was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as RabbitMQ, over the 41 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RabbitMQ was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 RabbitMQ. 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 40 of the 41 answers that named RabbitMQ and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
devopsschool.com21
dacast.com16
redpanda.com16
confluent.io14
g2.com12
linkedin.com12
airbyte.com10
cotocus.com10
eventlive.pro10
guideflow.com10
131 of the 131 domain citations in answers naming RabbitMQ came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
rabbitmq.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, RabbitMQ takes 0% of first choices and Confluent Cloud takes 39%.ShowHide
Search and answers
rabbitmq.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, RabbitMQ takes 0% of first choices and Confluent Cloud takes 39%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “event streaming platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “event streaming platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 9,900 a month (“rabbitmq”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 1,714 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 13,078 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 6,292 · 372 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 11,287
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
Ads on Google
None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 72 of 98 in streaming
Segment leader
39%
Confluent Cloud
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 41 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 40 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on rabbitmq.com
1,326
subdomains included
Content
197
counted in the table below
Documentation
898
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 181 | 0 | 2026-04-01 | Feature flags | |
| Template or tool | 6 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 5 | 0 | 2010-09-01 | ||
| Case study | 4 | 0 | 2020-06-01 | ||
| Conference or event | 1 | 0 | 2011-10-01 |
Most recent
- 2026-04-01Rabbitmq 4.3 release blog
- 2025-09-016 khepri default blog
- 2025-09-01Sql filter expressions blog
- 2025-09-01Stream delivery optimization blog
- 2025-07-01Go stream client 1.5.8 critical fix blog
- 2025-07-01Debian apt repositories are moving blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page rabbitmq.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as RabbitMQ
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as RabbitMQ; a claim can dispute any of them.
RabbitMQ Streams 1
Follow RabbitMQ
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.
The company
RabbitMQ is its own company.ShowHide
The company
RabbitMQ is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- One broker to queue them all
- For
- distributed microservices, real-time data, and IoT
- Price stated
- Free and Open Source Software. In addition, Broadcom offers an enterprise grade commercial offering with 24/7 expert support. rabbitmq.com
- Free plan or trial
- Free and Open Source Software rabbitmq.com
- Customers named
- LAIKA
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting
What RabbitMQ's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: rabbitmq.com, rabbitmq.com/security, rabbitmq.com/blog/tags/case-studies. A claimed page can correct any of 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 RabbitMQ'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 RabbitMQ, 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 RabbitMQ by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where RabbitMQ 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 RabbitMQ, 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.