Every category where a model named TrueFoundry 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
LLM gateways and observability	Data platform	0%	14 of 63	0%	9	under 10 labels · led by LiteLLM at 38%
ML platforms	Data platform	0%	26 of 99	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Azure Machine Learning at 17%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for TrueFoundry 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 TrueFoundry across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	2	1	3
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	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

Direct5 labels1

Paraphrase6 labels2

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative4 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative26 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 4 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.

“TrueFoundry stands out by offering seamless integration and combining LLM observability with an AI Gateway” Claude Haiku 4.5 · LLM gateways · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“A cloud-agnostic platform for deploying machine learning models.” Llama 4 Maverick · ML platforms · negative prompt · alternative

“TrueFoundry: Best for Kubernetes-Native and GenAI/LLM Workloads” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ML platforms · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“You need enterprise-grade governance across multiple teams” Kimi K2 · LLM 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as TrueFoundry, over the 26 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and TrueFoundry was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

LiteLLM17 of 269Not in the top three

Portkey17 of 262Not in the top three

Bifrost13 of 262Not in the top three

OpenRouter11 of 261Not in the top three

Kong AI Gateway11 of 260Not in the top three

Helicone10 of 261Not in the top three

Cloudflare AI Gateway9 of 260Not in the top three

Braintrust4 of 261Not in the top three

Google Vertex AI4 of 260Not in the top three

Databricks3 of 261Not 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 TrueFoundry. 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 26 answers that named TrueFoundry and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

truefoundry.comYour site19

getmaxim.ai16

dev.to13

braintrust.dev10

dataiku.com10

cloudzero.com8

orq.ai7

respan.ai7

contabo.com5

konghq.com5

Eighty-one of the 100 domain citations in answers naming TrueFoundry came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

dataiku.com/blog/best-llm-gateways9

truefoundry.com/blog/best-llm-gateways9

cloudzero.com/blog/llm-gateways8

orq.ai/blog/best-llm-gateways7

respan.ai/articles/best-llm-gateways7

braintrust.dev/articles/best-llm-gateways-20266

getmaxim.ai/articles/best-enterprise-llm-gateways-in-2026-a-comparative-guide6

getmaxim.ai/articles/how-to-evaluate-an-llm-gateway-for-enterprise-scalability5

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 TrueFoundry'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 TrueFoundry, 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 truefoundry.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.