| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT asset management | IT operations and endpoint | 25% | 2 of 82 | 18% | 40 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 24% → 24%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| IT documentation | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 19 of 92 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Hudu at 17% | |
| IT financial management | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 54 of 159 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Nicus ITFM Platform at 9% |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITAM | 24% | 24% | =heldSince September 2026: 24% → 24%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 → 2 of 82 |
| IT documentation | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 19 of 92, unchanged |
| IT financial mgmt | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 54 of 159, 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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Grok 4.20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Snipe-IT is the most frequently cited budget choice... If you have technical staff and want $0 ongoing license cost, self-host Snipe-IT.” Muse Glimmer 30B · ITAM · budget prompt · first choice
“Highly recommended for small IT departments with basic tracking needs. The self-hosted version is completely free” Mistral Small · ITAM · budget prompt · first choice
“Snipe-IT is widely considered the best free IT Asset Management system on the market.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · ITAM · budget prompt · first choice
“Snipe-IT is widely considered the best option for budget-conscious organizations.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · ITAM · budget prompt · first choice
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.
“beloved for its simplicity, but it lacks built-in discovery agents \u2014 you must manually add assets or build integrations” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ITAM · negative prompt · soft negative
“Avoid open-source like Snipe-IT unless you're resource-constrained (it's free but requires more setup/maintenance)” Grok 4.20 · ITAM · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“may be a poor fit for large enterprises, deep ITSM workflows, advanced automation, asset discovery” Perplexity Sonar · ITAM · negative prompt · soft negative
“"I will always have my reservations about SnipeIT... it lacks inherent automation capabilities."” Muse Glimmer 30B · ITAM · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 125 of the 137 answers that named Snipe-IT and are not a share of its labels.
435 of the 435 domain citations in answers naming Snipe-IT came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
What Snipe-IT's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: snipeitapp.com. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Snipe-IT'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 Snipe-IT, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Snipe-IT by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
Snipe-IT is among the products AI models recommend first in IT asset management this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.