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
Streaming platforms	Data platform	0%	62 of 78	42%	12	criticized challenger

Movement

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained8 labels1

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative19 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative33 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.

“RabbitMQ and NATS are better suited for lower‑throughput, latency‑critical, or non‑persistent messaging.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Streaming · comparative prompt · alternative

“Open-source message broker that's lightweight and easier to operate than Kafka for simpler use cases.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Streaming · budget prompt · alternative

“free if you have the engineering time and servers to run it” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Streaming · budget prompt · alternative

“Best for simplest small-scale messaging: RabbitMQ” GPT-5.4 mini · 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.

“Do I need Replayability? If yes, avoid RabbitMQ.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Streaming · negative prompt · hard negative

“Don't use RabbitMQ for streaming workloads” Kimi K2 · Streaming · negative prompt · hard negative

“Poor scalability for high-throughput streaming: Peaks at ~38 MB/s vs. Kafka's 605 MB/s” Grok 4.1 Fast · Streaming · negative prompt · soft negative

“similar ephemeral brokers like RabbitMQ *without* durable queues/persistence” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Streaming · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as RabbitMQ, over the 32 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.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Apache Kafka31 of 3210Not in the top three

Amazon Kinesis Data Streams22 of 321Not in the top three

Redpanda21 of 326Not in the top three

Apache Pulsar20 of 320Not in the top three

Google Cloud Pub/Sub19 of 321Not in the top three

Confluent Cloud18 of 323Not in the top three

Azure Event Hubs17 of 321Not in the top three

Aiven for Apache Kafka10 of 321Not in the top three

Amazon MSK9 of 322Not in the top three

Redis Streams8 of 320Not 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 RabbitMQ. 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 23 of the 32 answers that named RabbitMQ and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cotocus.com12

automq.com11

devopsschool.com11

guideflow.com11

confluent.io10

dacast.com9

estuary.dev7

gartner.com7

kai-waehner.de7

modern-datatools.com7

Ninety-two of the ninety-two domain citations in answers naming RabbitMQ came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cotocus.com/blog/top-10-event-streaming-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison12

guideflow.com/blog/event-streaming-software11

automq.com/blog/top-10-event-streaming-platforms-confluent-msk-redpanda-alternatives8

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-event-streaming-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison7

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-event-streaming-platforms-tools-in-2025-features-pros-cons-co7

rajeshkumar.xyz/blog/event-streaming-platforms7

gartner.com/reviews/market/event-stream-processing6

moldstud.com/articles/p-a-developers-perspective-kafka-vs-other-event-streaming-solutions6

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 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.

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 rabbitmq.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.