| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| API management | Developer platform | 10% | 4 of 61 | 0% | 14 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 11% → 11%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| API gateways | Developer platform | 8% | 5 of 66 | 0% | 24 | accepted challenger | ▼−7Since September 2026: 16% → 9%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| API security platforms | Security operations | 4% | 10 of 93 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Aikido Security at 12% | |
| LLM gateways and observability | Data platform | 0% | 58 of 69 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by LiteLLM at 31% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| API gateways | 16% | 9% | ▼−7Since September 2026: 16% → 9%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 5 of 66 |
| API security | 0% | 5% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 5% now. | New this edition | Rank 10 of 93, unchanged |
| API management | 11% | 11% | =heldSince September 2026: 11% → 11%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 4 of 61, unchanged |
| LLM gateways | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 58 of 69, 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 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“If you are running a modern SaaS stack and want to spend your engineering hours on building your B2B product rather than managing gateway servers, start with Zuplo.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · API gateways · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Candidates like Kong Konnect, Tyk, Azure API Management, or Zuplo are often the right fit at this scale” DeepSeek V4 Flash · API management · scale prompt · first choice
“Speed & Hands-off Maintenance | Zuplo | Best SaaS free tier ($0 up to 100k requests/mo); no servers to manage.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · API management · budget prompt · first choice
“pick Kong for the lowest-cost serious platform, or Zuplo if you prefer managed convenience with a tiny budget” Perplexity Sonar · API management · 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.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 154 of the 156 answers that named Zuplo and are not a share of its labels.
411 of the 537 domain citations in answers naming Zuplo 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.
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 275 | 23 | 2026-09-22 | API gateways, API management | |
| Podcast or video | 244 | 1 | 2026-07-15 | API gateways, API management | |
| Comparison | 79 | 25 | 2026-09-22 | API gateways, API management | |
| Glossary or explainer | 71 | 0 | 2026-03-13 | API gateways, API management | |
| Report or ebook | 23 | 12 | 2026-09-28 | ||
| Case study | 20 | 0 | 2026-03-23 | ||
| Conference or event | 10 | 0 | 2025-08-08 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 3 | 0 | 2025-05-16 |
Every page zuplo.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 September 29, 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.
What Zuplo's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: zuplo.com, zuplo.com/pricing, trust.zuplo.com, zuplo.com/features/gitops, zuplo.com/customers. 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 Zuplo'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 Zuplo, 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 Zuplo by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: