Every category where a model named Traefik 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
API gateways	Developer platform	0%	9 of 51	0%	21	accepted challenger
API management	Developer platform	0%	44 of 55	50%	2	under 10 labels · led by Kong Gateway at 37%

Movement

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

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

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative14 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained7 labelsNone

Negative16 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative49 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 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.

“You need a lightweight, edge‑native router rather than a full API management platform → Traefik” GLM 4.7 FlashX · API gateways · comparative prompt · alternative

“host an open-source gateway (like Traefik or Envoy) inside an ECS/EKS cluster” Gemini 3.5 Flash · API gateways · negative prompt · alternative

“Choose Gloo or Traefik if you are building inside a Kubernetes ecosystem” Gemini 3.5 Flash · API gateways · comparative prompt · alternative

“Traefik is often the simplest choice in Kubernetes-heavy environments” Perplexity Sonar · API gateways · comparative 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.

“Primarily a reverse proxy, not a full API management platform” GLM 4.7 FlashX · API management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Traefik, over the 49 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Traefik was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Kong Gateway48 of 4918Not in the top three

Amazon API Gateway43 of 496Not in the top three

Tyk38 of 492Not in the top three

Apigee33 of 492Not in the top three

Azure API Management25 of 490Not in the top three

Zuplo22 of 496Not in the top three

Apache APISIX22 of 495Not in the top three

NGINX22 of 490Not in the top three

MuleSoft Anypoint Platform14 of 490Not in the top three

KrakenD8 of 491Not 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 Traefik. 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 39 of the 49 answers that named Traefik and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

zuplo.com30

toolradar.com22

api7.ai20

geekflare.com20

dupple.com18

reddit.com15

digitalapi.ai13

knoxcall.com11

moesif.com11

sourceforge.net11

171 of the 171 domain citations in answers naming Traefik came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

toolradar.com/guides/best-api-gateways22

geekflare.com/guides/best-api-gateways20

dupple.com/learn/best-api-gateways18

api7.ai/top-11-api-gateways-platforms-compared13

knoxcall.com/blog/article/best-api-gateways-small-teams-202611

zuplo.com/learning-center/best-api-gateways-202610

zuplo.com/learning-center/best-api-gateways-startups-20269

zuplo.com/learning-center/api-gateway-pricing-comparison-20268

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Traefik

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

Traefik/Envoy 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 Traefik'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 Traefik, 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 traefik.io 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.