Your Brand has an AI reputation and it's shaping purchase decisions right now.
Swipe up to continue
6 AI models · 10 answers per model · ranked by score
ordered by brand score: 100 pts for rank 1 → 20 for rank 5 · no mention = 0
Each bar covers the middle half of one model’s answers (Q1–Q3); the line inside it is that model’s median rank for the times it recommended the brand. The badge under a brand says how far apart the models are on it, and “first choice” scores rank 1 far above the rest — a brand can place well overall and still rarely lead an answer.
Swipe left for the full report
Median rank each model gave each brand.
Scroll the table sideways to see every model →
| claude-opus-5 | deepseek-v4.1-flash | gemini-3.7-flash | gpt-6-astra | kimi-k3 | mistral-medium-3.5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airtable | 3.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Microsoft | 2.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | — |
| Zapier | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | — | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Retool | 1.0 | — | 4.0 | — | 4.5 | 3.0 |
| Glide | — | — | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | — |
| AppSheet | — | 2.5 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Quickbase | — | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | — |
| Make | — | 5.0 | 4.0 | — | 5.0 | — |
| Softr | — | — | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | — |
| Kissflow | — | 5.0 | — | 4.0 | — | — |
| Bubble | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | 5.0 |
| Appsmith | 5.0 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Smartsheet | — | 5.0 | — | 5.0 | — | — |
| — | — | — | 3.0 | — | — | |
| Monday.com | — | 4.0 | — | — | — | 4.5 |
| Zoho Creator | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — |
A dash means that model never named the brand in any of its runs. Deeper blue is better: rank 1 is the brand a model would recommend first.
5 of 16 brands split the panel. Each mark is one model's score for the brand, on the same 0–100 scale as the ranking.
deepseek-v4.1-flash 0 → claude-opus-5 100 · 2 of 6 never named it
mistral-medium-3.5 0 → deepseek-v4.1-flash 94 · 1 of 6 never named it
claude-opus-5 0 → gpt-6-astra 68 · 3 of 6 never named it
gpt-6-astra 0 → kimi-k3 74 · 1 of 6 never named it
claude-opus-5 0 → deepseek-v4.1-flash 52 · 1 of 6 never named it
claude-opus-5 62 → mistral-medium-3.5 100
A hollow mark is a model that never named the brand in any of its runs, which scores 0. Agreement is not endorsement — a brand every model ignores equally agrees just as tightly as one they all rank first.
Across → how frequently the panel names the brand at all.
Up ↑ how often the answers that name it put it first.
The horizontal line sits at 20% — the rate a named brand would lead at if the models were picking one of its 5 slots at random. Above it they are choosing it first on purpose. Both figures average across models, so a thinly sampled model counts the same as a heavily sampled one.
Airtable leads with a score of 90 of 100, ranked by 6 of 6 models.
Four models converge on Airtable as their first choice, driving its brand score to 89.67, while two others place it second or third. The remaining positions reveal far less consensus: Microsoft ranges from 94 to zero across models, Retool from 100 to zero, and Zapier from 74 to zero, producing standard deviations above 27 points for all three. This fragmentation stems from fundamentally different interpretations of "without developers"—models disagree whether the brief permits semi-technical users, IT-supported citizen developers, or only purely visual builders.
The Microsoft divide hinges on existing infrastructure. Deepseek-v4.1-flash awards it rank 1 with a score of 94, emphasizing Microsoft 365 integration, pre-existing licenses, and enterprise governance—themes echoed in citations of the Gartner Magic Quadrant and Microsoft Learn documentation. Conversely, models that prioritize ease-of-use for truly non-technical staff penalize Power Apps for formula-based customization and environment administration, pushing it to the middle or bottom. This gap reflects whether a model assumes companies already operate in the Microsoft ecosystem or weighs the platform against simpler alternatives in isolation.
Microsoft ahead on 2 of 6 models
Retool produces the sharpest divergence: Claude-opus-5 places it first in every run, citing pre-built components, native database connectors, and Retool Workflows as definitive strengths for internal tooling, while two models omit it from more than half their answers and score it near zero. The split maps directly onto SQL and JavaScript requirements. Models treating "without developers" as a hard constraint view any scripting as disqualifying, whereas those allowing semi-technical users see Retool as the fastest path to production-grade admin panels and dashboards. Hacker News discussions and Retool's own documentation surface most often in the reasoning of the former group, suggesting technical communities may reinforce Retool's low-code positioning.
Retool · 100 points apart on a 0–100 scale
Zapier earns unanimous recognition as the leader in cross-SaaS automation, yet never claims a first-place vote. Models agree on its connector library and ease-of-setup but diverge on whether automation alone satisfies the internal-app brief. Two models rank it second, treating lightweight workflow apps built with Tables and Interfaces as sufficient; three others place it third or fourth, emphasizing that full data modeling and rich UIs remain outside its scope. G2 reviews and the Zapier blog appear consistently, validating its automation dominance while reinforcing the boundaries of that strength.
Glide and AppSheet both produce sharp splits, though for different reasons. Glide scores 68 from two models but zero from three others, with the divide turning on how heavily simplicity and mobile design weigh against constraints in complex logic and permissions. AppSheet's scores span 0 to 52, reflecting disagreement over whether Google Workspace integration and offline capabilities outweigh its expression-based configuration and dated interface. The hypothesis is that models weighting ecosystem fit favor AppSheet for Google-centric companies, while those prioritizing visual builders penalize it.
Quickbase, Make, Softr, Kissflow, and Bubble all register brand scores below 12 and appear in fewer than four models' rankings. The panel broadly agrees these platforms serve narrower niches: Quickbase for structured operational apps requiring governance, Make for complex backend automation at the cost of steeper learning curves, Softr as a frontend-only layer over Airtable or Sheets, Kissflow for process-heavy approval workflows, and Bubble for full-stack custom web apps that exceed internal workflow needs. Coverage and conviction rates confirm these are seen as secondary options rather than primary recommendations.
Source recall clusters around G2, with the no-code platforms category page cited 46 times and individual product reviews for Airtable, Zapier, Microsoft, and AppSheet appearing between 11 and 28 times each. Vendor documentation—Airtable, Microsoft Learn, Retool, and AppSheet support pages—reinforces functional claims, while TechCrunch, Product Hunt, and Hacker News surface in reasoning about market perception and community adoption. The hypothesis is that models citing review aggregators prioritize user feedback and ease-of-use signals, while those leaning on Gartner and Forrester weight enterprise governance and analyst validation more heavily.
79 sources across 828 references, grouped by site from 254 recalled names. The top 5 carry 53% of them.
g2.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
Airtable commands near-universal endorsement across the panel, earning a brand score of 89.67 and ranking coverage of 100 percent. Four of the six models placed it first in every run, while the remaining two positioned it consistently in the top three. The consensus centers on Airtable's ability to marry spreadsheet familiarity with relational database power, interface design, and workflow automation—making it the fastest on-ramp for non-technical teams to ship operational tools. Models emphasize its suitability for trackers, approval flows, request intake, and departmental apps that would otherwise live in rigid spreadsheets or email threads. The enthusiasm is tempered by common caveats: complex permissions, high record volumes, granular business logic, and enterprise governance all surface as points where the platform can strain or require more expensive tiers.
The models draw heavily on review aggregators and product documentation to validate Airtable's ease of adoption and template ecosystem. G2www.g2.com/products/airtable/reviews×28 appears most frequently, alongside repeated citations of the official Airtable site and support pages. The split in model scores reflects differences in emphasis rather than outright disagreement: models that prioritize approachability and speed rank it first unconditionally, while those weighing enterprise-scale constraints or advanced logic assign it a median rank of two or three. Despite this variance, every model agrees that Airtable occupies a central role in the no-code landscape for internal workflows, balancing accessibility with enough flexibility to serve diverse use cases.
“Airtable hits the sweet spot for non-technical teams: a spreadsheet-familiar interface on top of a real relational database, plus built-in automations, forms, and an interface designer for turning data into usable internal apps.”
“Airtable is the easiest on-ramp for non-technical teams: a spreadsheet-like database with interfaces, forms, and built-in automations that can run real operational workflows within days.”
Airtable is consistently described as combining an intuitive, spreadsheet-like interface with relational database power, Interface Designer, and built-in automations, delivering the ideal balance of ease of use and functionality for non-technical teams.
Airtable is framed as the strongest general-purpose recommendation for nontechnical teams, balancing accessibility through familiar spreadsheet-style interfaces with flexibility, though complex permissions, business logic, and scaling introduce limitations.
Airtable is characterized as hitting the optimal balance of accessibility and power, combining spreadsheet familiarity with relational database capabilities, interfaces, and automations to enable non-technical teams to ship working apps rapidly without engineering support.
Airtable is highlighted for its flexibility and ease of use, merging spreadsheet-like simplicity with database and automation capabilities, making it ideal for custom workflows and internal tools without code.
Airtable is emphasized as the fastest, most approachable on-ramp for non-developers to build internal apps and workflows, excelling at team-level and departmental use cases but facing governance and scalability challenges at large enterprise scale.
Airtable is positioned as the easiest entry point for non-technical teams, combining spreadsheet familiarity with database power, interfaces, and automations, though it hits limits at high volumes, complex logic, and granular permissions.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
capterra.com
airtable.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
also named Microsoft Power Apps, Microsoft Power Platform, Power Apps
Microsoft's Power Platform registers a brand score of 49 across the panel, but that aggregate masks deep disagreement: per-model scores range from zero to 94, a gap the data labels sharply split. Five of the six models ranked Microsoft, yet only one placed it first with any consistency. The core divide turns on whether a company already operates inside the Microsoft 365 ecosystem and whether "no developers" means truly non-technical users or citizen developers with IT support. Models that weighted enterprise governance, native integration with Teams and SharePoint, and pre-existing licensing gave Microsoft top marks, while those that prioritized simplicity for business users without any technical backstop pushed it to the middle or bottom of their lists.
The recurring themes center on enterprise integration and governance versus complexity and learning curve. Sources such as G2×9, Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Low-Code Application Platforms×10, and Microsoft Learn — Power Appslearn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-apps×5 underpin observations that Power Apps and Power Automate deliver deep connectors, compliance tooling, and security controls that regulated or large organizations require. At the same time, every model flags licensing confusion, formula-based customization, and environment administration as barriers that often require a citizen-developer champion or IT involvement, undermining the promise of working entirely without developers. The result is a platform that excels when Microsoft 365 is already the backbone of operations but loses ground to simpler tools when ease-of-use for non-technical staff is the deciding factor.
“Power Apps plus Power Automate is the default choice for companies already on Microsoft 365, since licensing, identity, and Dataverse/SharePoint/Teams integration are already in place.”
“Power Platform (Power Apps, Power Automate, Dataverse) offers the deepest enterprise capability, with governance, security, and native integration into Microsoft 365 and Teams that many companies already license.”
Power Platform is the strongest enterprise option for internal workflows because it combines no-code app building with deep Microsoft 365 integration, Dataverse, and Power Automate while giving IT governance and security controls. The platform enables citizen developers to build broadly across the organization, though licensing complexity and ecosystem familiarity may be required.
Power Apps and Power Automate are the default choice for Microsoft 365 organizations due to native integration with Teams, SharePoint, and Dataverse, combined with enterprise-grade governance and often bundled licensing. The main trade-offs are a steeper learning curve than newer tools and confusing licensing complexity.
Microsoft Power Platform provides enterprise-grade capabilities with deep native integration into the Microsoft 365 ecosystem, allowing non-developers to build secure applications connected to organizational data sources. The platform's licensing tiers, governance settings, and administrative complexity present a steeper learning curve compared to simpler alternatives.
Power Apps and Power Automate are compelling for Microsoft 365 companies due to extensive integrations and enterprise governance, but formulas, licensing complexity, environment administration, and customization requirements can demand specialist knowledge that makes truly developer-free implementation harder. The platform ranks lower specifically for the requirement to work without developers, though existing Microsoft environments could improve its position.
Power Platform offers the deepest enterprise capability with strong governance, security, and native Microsoft 365 integration that many companies already license, making it the natural choice for Microsoft-centric organizations. However, confusing licensing, a steeper learning curve, and governance overhead often require IT or citizen developer champions, reducing its fit for true non-technical users despite its capabilities.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
g2.com
learn.microsoft.com
no URL recalled
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
Zapier achieves a brand score of 39.33 across the panel, but that headline figure masks a sharp divide: five models place it between rank 2 and rank 4, while one largely overlooks it, producing scores that range from 0 to 74 and a standard deviation of 27.92. The recurring theme across all commentary is that Zapier is the acknowledged leader for workflow automation and cross-SaaS integration—models cite its library of 6,000 to 8,000+ app connectors and its extremely low barrier to entry—but it is consistently positioned as an automation layer rather than a complete internal-app platform. Newer features such as Tables, Interfaces, and Canvas are noted as lightweight app-building additions, yet every model flags that complex data modeling, rich UIs, and data-heavy applications remain outside Zapier's core strength. Task-based pricing that escalates with volume is a second recurring concern. Sources underpinning these judgments include G2www.g2.com/products/zapier/reviews×17, PCMag×11, and Zapierzapier.com×17.
The models agree on the scope of Zapier's leadership—automation and integration—but differ on how far that extends into the internal-app-building brief. The top-scoring models treat Zapier's automation dominance as sufficient to warrant a rank 2 or 3 position for lightweight workflow apps, while lower scorers emphasize that building full-fledged internal tools requires a dedicated app platform alongside or instead of Zapier. No model places it first, and its first-choice score of 24.44 reflects this unanimous view that it is a strong complement but not the primary answer to the prompt. The overall coverage of 83 percent and conviction rate confirm that Zapier is widely recognized, yet its role is understood to be narrower than that of all-in-one builders.
“Zapier is consistently positioned as the strongest cross-SaaS automation layer with the largest connector library (7,000–8,000+ apps), but its app-building capabilities (Tables, Interfaces, Canvas) are acknowledged as less mature than dedicated internal-app platforms.”
“Zapier is the best-known no-code tool for connecting SaaS apps and automating cross-system workflows without developers. However, it is more of an automation and integration layer than a full platform for building internal apps with databases and interfaces.”
Zapier is consistently described as the default or gold standard for cross-tool workflow automation with the largest integration library (6,000–7,000+ apps), but it is positioned as automation-first rather than a full internal-app builder, with complex UIs and data modeling not being its strength. Cost scaling with task volume is a recurring concern.
Zapier is repeatedly described as the go-to leader for workflow automation with thousands of app integrations, but it is consistently noted as lacking full app-building capabilities (no visual builder or built-in database), positioning it as a tool for connecting systems and automating repetitive tasks rather than constructing complete internal apps.
Zapier is highlighted as the industry standard for no-code workflow automation with the largest library of app integrations, though its primary strength is event-driven automation rather than building complex, interactive internal applications. Scaling costs and UI limitations for sophisticated apps are recurring themes.
Zapier is consistently positioned as the strongest cross-SaaS automation layer with the largest connector library (7,000–8,000+ apps), but its app-building capabilities (Tables, Interfaces, Canvas) are acknowledged as less mature than dedicated internal-app platforms. Task-based pricing is flagged as a recurring cost concern at high volume.
Zapier is recognized as the leading automation and integration tool for connecting SaaS apps and workflows, but it is consistently described as not being a full app-building platform and works best alongside other builders.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
g2.com
zapier.com
g2.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
Retool produces a sharp divide across the evaluation panel, with models split between viewing it as the definitive leader for internal tooling and seeing it as a poor fit for teams explicitly lacking developers. One model placed Retool first in every single run and awarded it a perfect score, while others ranked it fourth or fifth when they included it at all, and two models omitted it from more than half their answers. This disagreement stems from a consistent technical threshold: every model acknowledges Retool's power for building admin panels, dashboards, and CRUD applications over databases and APIs, but all note that unlocking that capability typically requires SQL or JavaScript familiarity, blurring the line between no-code and low-code.
The recalled sources cluster around vendor documentation, community discussions, and review aggregators. G2×9 appears most frequently, followed by Retool official siteretool.com×5 and Hacker News discussions on internal tooling×1. Models that ranked Retool highly emphasized its pre-built components, native database connectors, Retool Workflows for automation, and enterprise features like SSO and audit logs, arguing these let semi-technical or operations teams maintain applications once patterns are established. Models that penalized it focused squarely on the brief's "without developers" constraint, treating any requirement for scripting as disqualifying despite the platform's strengths. The result is a brand score that reflects polarized views rather than lukewarm consensus.
“Retool is the strongest all-around platform for internal tools, offering drag-and-drop UI building on top of nearly any database or API, plus Retool Workflows for scheduled and event-driven automation.”
“It ranks lower here because it leans low-code rather than no-code — real productivity typically assumes comfort with SQL and JavaScript, which conflicts with a strict 'without developers' requirement.”
Retool is consistently positioned as the strongest, most capable platform for building internal tools and admin panels, offering scalability from simple CRUD apps to complex operational tooling through pre-built components, deep database/API connectivity, and Retool Workflows. The recurring caveat is that while non-developers can build apps, the platform rewards semi-technical knowledge and benefits most when someone with SQL/JavaScript familiarity is available.
Retool is positioned as a powerful platform specifically designed for building internal tools quickly with pre-built components and deep database/API integrations, but it consistently requires some technical knowledge or familiarity to unlock its full customization potential and may have a steeper learning curve than simpler alternatives.
Retool is described as a leading platform for building internal operational tools and dashboards with strong database and API connectivity, but it leans low-code rather than no-code, often requiring SQL or scripting familiarity that may present friction for fully non-technical teams.
Retool is repeatedly characterized as the most powerful or best purpose-built platform for internal admin panels and dashboards, but consistently ranked lower or last due to its low-code nature requiring SQL or JavaScript knowledge, making it a poor fit for the specific 'without developers' requirement despite its technical strengths.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
g2.com
g2.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
Glide provokes sharply divergent assessments across the panel, with per-model brand scores spanning 0 to 68 and a standard deviation above 30 points. Two models placed it consistently at rank 2, viewing it as one of the most accessible platforms for transforming spreadsheets and databases into polished, mobile-friendly internal apps with minimal technical overhead. A third model ranked it typically at rank 4, acknowledging the same ease of use but weighing more heavily the platform's constraints around complex logic, granular permissions, and enterprise-scale data handling. Half the panel did not rank Glide at all, contributing to an overall brand score of 28.33 and a first choice score of 17.61, neither figure reflecting consensus endorsement. The models that did include Glide converged on a common narrative: it excels at speed and design for straightforward operational tools such as directories, inventory trackers, and field apps, but bumps against limitations when workflows grow intricate or data relationships become multi-tiered.
The recalled sources cluster around product reviews on G2×9 and Product Hunt×12, alongside direct platform documentation from Glide itself. Models that ranked Glide higher drew frequently on these review sites to emphasize the platform's pre-built components and gentle learning curve, while the model that placed it lower cited the same sources to highlight trade-offs in automation depth and scalability. The reasoning repeatedly contrasts Glide's visual, design-first builder—praised for producing attractive results in hours—with warnings about usage-based pricing, data-source requirements, and the need to evaluate integration capabilities before company-wide adoption.
“Glide is especially strong when nontechnical employees need to turn business data into polished, mobile-friendly internal apps such as directories, inventory tools, and field-service workflows.”
“It ranks fourth because complex logic, permissions, and scaling needs can push you against its limits sooner than the top three.”
Gemini consistently emphasizes Glide's ability to rapidly transform existing business data from spreadsheets and databases into polished, responsive web and mobile applications using an intuitive drag-and-drop interface with pre-built components. It notes the platform's exceptional speed and accessibility for non-technical users, while acknowledging limitations when handling complex backend logic or multi-tiered enterprise relationships.
GPT-Astra repeatedly highlights Glide's strength in enabling nontechnical employees to build polished, mobile-friendly internal apps with an approachable visual builder, particularly for straightforward operational tools like directories and inventory systems. It consistently advises careful evaluation of usage limits, data-source requirements, and integration capabilities before company-wide adoption, especially as complexity increases.
Kimi consistently characterizes Glide as the fastest way to convert spreadsheets into polished, mobile-friendly apps with an exceptionally gentle learning curve, ideal for simple operational tools and field teams. It repeatedly notes that while the design-first approach produces attractive results quickly, the platform's capacity for complex logic, granular permissions, and enterprise-scale data handling is more limited than competing platforms.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
where
where
Each one is a single question put to every active AI model, many times over.
See every category with its question and leaders.
Tell us what to ask and how wide to sample it — we run it and send back the report.