Every category where a model named Metabase 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
Financial reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	0%	33 of 133	27%	11	criticized challenger
SaaS metrics and analytics	Planning and analysis	0%	19 of 81	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by ChartMogul at 45%

Movement

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

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

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative14 labelsNone

Budget-constrained10 labels1

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative10 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative39 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 2 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.

“Small teams/non-technical users: Metabase (open-source, user-friendly)” Kimi K2 · Financial reporting · negative prompt · first choice

“consider open-source alternatives like Airbyte (for ELT) or Metabase if costs/support are concerns” Grok 4.1 Fast · Financial reporting · negative prompt · alternative

“Metabase is ideal for simple internal SQL dashboards and self‑service reporting.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Financial reporting · comparative prompt · alternative

“Metabase is the go-to open-source business intelligence tool for technical teams” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SaaS metrics · budget 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.

“Avoid (for mid-to-large teams): Metabase (Community Edition) & Redash.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Financial reporting · negative prompt · hard negative

“not built for high-volume scheduled delivery” Perplexity Sonar · Financial reporting · negative prompt · hard negative

“Easier to deploy and use, but less focused on high-volume scheduled delivery.” Perplexity Sonar · Financial reporting · comparative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Metabase, over the 39 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Metabase was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Power BI27 of 3910Not in the top three

Tableau23 of 393Not in the top three

Looker Studio22 of 397Not in the top three

ChartMogul18 of 399Not in the top three

Looker18 of 390Not in the top three

Databox15 of 394Not in the top three

Baremetrics14 of 392Not in the top three

ProfitWell Metrics11 of 396Not in the top three

Domo10 of 390Not in the top three

Qlik Sense8 of 390Not 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 Metabase. 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 31 of the 39 answers that named Metabase and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

databox.com14

designrevision.com13

baremetrics.com10

reddit.com10

worldmetrics.org9

coefficient.io8

fastero.com8

rollstack.com7

fanruan.com6

improvado.io6

Ninety-one of the ninety-one domain citations in answers naming Metabase came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

designrevision.com/blog/saas-reporting-tools13

databox.com/10-analytics-tools-that-help-every-team-member-magically-boost-performance7

coefficient.io/saas-metrics-dashboard-5-best-examples6

rollstack.com/articles/automated-reporting-tools-the-8-best-tools-available5

taskade.com/blog/saas-metrics-dashboard-templates5

thedigitalprojectmanager.com/tools/best-reporting-tools5

baremetrics.com/blog/baremetrics-vs-chartmogul-which-is-right-for-your-business4

geckoboard.com/dashboard-examples/finance/saas-company-dashboard4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Metabase

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

Metabase (Community Edition) 1Metabase (Open-Source Edition) 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 Metabase'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 Metabase, 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 metabase.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.