| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data center infrastructure management | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 17 of 103 | 17% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by Sunbird DCIM at 27% |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Choose EcoStruxure or Sunbird if you care most about energy efficiency (PUE)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DCIM · comparative prompt · first choice
“Consider Vertiv/Nlyte if you want to evaluate another established DCIM vendor” GPT-5.4 mini · DCIM · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“vendors like Vertiv or Nlyte may also be worth shortlisting” GPT-5.4 mini · DCIM · direct prompt · alternative
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.
“For example, Vertiv discontinued Trellis, leaving customers needing to transition support and strategy.” GPT-5.4 mini · DCIM · 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 9 of the 11 answers that named Vertiv and are not a share of its labels.
Twenty-seven of the twenty-seven domain citations in answers naming Vertiv came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 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.
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-11 to 2026-10 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News or press | 6,363 | 1 | 2026-09-14 | DCIM, Colocation | |
| Report or ebook | 833 | undated | |||
| Case study | 799 | undated | Colocation, APM | ||
| Blog | 678 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 622 | 3 | 2026-10-16 | Data center networking, SCA | |
| Podcast or video | 242 | undated | APM | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 206 | 0 | 2020-06-10 | DCIM, RMM | |
| Template or tool | 178 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 55 | undated | |||
| Webinar or virtual event | 31 | undated |
As the event pages on vertiv.com state them, read October 5, 2026.
Every page vertiv.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 October 5, 2026.
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.
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 Vertiv'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 Vertiv, 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 Vertiv by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: