Dashboards and data visualization
Asked as “business intelligence and dashboard tool”, and as “data visualization platform”, on behalf of a mid-market B2B software company. 25 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, six models each.
Standing · first-choice share
56%
Clear leader
56Microsoft Power BI20Sigma12Looker Studio12others
56% of first choices, clear leader.
The standing
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, over all six models, for a mid-market B2B software company. Ordered by share.
ProductFirst-choice shareNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
03
Looker Studio Lab in the set12%10%10accepted challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 12% now.
Looker Studio Lab in the set12%10%10accepted challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 12% now.05
Looker Lab in the set4%19%27accepted challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 4% now.
Looker Lab in the set4%19%27accepted challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 4% now.Show the three products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
The floor is 12 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 can't be told apart from repeat variation, and both are shown. Each index measures its own floor from its own repeat, over its own categories, so the floor differs from one index to the next. How the floor is measured
Bars are the share of first choices, 0 to 100Every product with at least 10 labels here. Every product name links to its product page.
Looker Studio is made by Google, whose model Gemini 3.1 Pro is in the set. On the four share prompts that model made it the first choice one time of 4; the other five models two times of 20. Looker is made by Google, whose model Gemini 3.1 Pro is in the set. On the four share prompts that model made it the first choice zero times of 4; the other five models one time of 20. Lab treatment is defined on the method page; the row is marked, not excluded.
Head to head
All ten head-to-head pages: the top five products, each against each
Recommended versus criticized
Every product with at least 10 labels here, on both axes. The 30% line names a quadrant, not the verdict above: that one needs more than 40%.
Criticized challengerCriticized default
Negative label rate →
01
0203
0405
06
07
08Accepted challengerEndorsed leader
0%First-choice share → · lines at 30% share and 25% negative70%
Key
01Microsoft Power BI56%
Microsoft Power BI56%02Sigma20%
Sigma20%03Looker Studio12%
Looker Studio12%04Metabase4%
Metabase4%05Looker4%
Looker4%06Tableau0%
Tableau0%07Qlik Sense0%
Qlik Sense0%08ThoughtSpot0%
ThoughtSpot0%What they warned about
One of six models held their first choice under the paraphrase. Claude Opus 5, Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-6 Astra, GPT-5.6 Sol and Gemini 3.1 Pro changed. A high negative share on a product with few labels is a warning. A low share on a product with many labels is salience, not sentiment.
Tableau24%
7 of 29 labels negative · 5 of 6 models · 2 hard negative
“Avoid Tableau if you just need basic operational reporting, simple dashboards” Gemini 3.1 Pro, negative prompt
Microsoft Power BI15%
5 of 34 labels negative · 5 of 6 models
“DAX has a notoriously steep learning curve, and users frequently complain that Microsoft's AI "Copilots" often hallucinate subtly incorrect DAX formulas” Gemini 3.1 Pro, negative prompt
Domo57%
4 of 7 labels negative · 4 of 6 models · 1 hard negative
“Avoid Domo if you need predictable annual software costs or if you are a small-to-midsize business.” Gemini 3.1 Pro, negative prompt
IBM Cognos
100%
3 of 3 labels negative · 3 of 6 models · 3 hard negative
“IBM Cognos Analytics 12.0.x standard support ends September 30, 2026... Avoid these specific versions for greenfield projects.” GPT-5.6 Sol, negative prompt
What they cite
Six of the six models returned a source list in this edition: six return the pages they cited.
Sites the answers cite
30 of 36 answers in this category came back with a source list, from 6 of 6 models: citations where the model returns them, or the search results it consulted. 520 links across 247 sites, every framing counted. Ranked by the number of answers carrying the site or page. None of the 36 answers across every segment cited this index's own page for the category.
vendor site · Microsoft13 answers · 15 citations · 5 models
vendor site · Metabase11 answers · 12 citations · 4 models
vendor site · Google10 answers · 11 citations · 4 models
vendor site · Holistics9 answers · 10 citations · 4 models
vendor site · Improvado9 answers · 9 citations · 3 models
8 answers · 11 citations · 3 models
8 answers · 9 citations · 3 models
vendor site · Tableau8 answers · 8 citations · 3 models
vendor site · ThoughtSpot8 answers · 8 citations · 5 models
vendor site · Domo7 answers · 9 citations · 4 models
vendor site · OvalEdge7 answers · 8 citations · 3 models
vendor site · Qlik7 answers · 8 citations · 4 models
Pages the answers cite
The ten pages named in the most answers, by full address. A page here is one the models returned with a recommendation, not one the index endorses.
7 answers · 4 models
7 answers · 3 models
7 answers · 3 models
6 answers · 2 models
6 answers · 2 models
5 answers · 2 models
5 answers · 1 model
4 answers · 2 models
4 answers · 2 models
4 answers · 2 models
Search against answers
Each company's standing in the answers beside its site's footprint in Google search, one row a site: the products the models named on it with their shares, and the share they add up to; monthly searches on Google, and DataForSEO's estimate of AI search demand (modeled from search signals, directional, not a count of queries to any assistant), for the most-searched of the company's and its products' names (the name is in each row's hover text); estimated monthly organic visits to the site; and its best position in Google's top ten for “best business intelligence and dashboard tool”, “business intelligence and dashboard tool”. US estimates from DataForSEO and Google's Ads Transparency Center. A small company's site, or a mid-sized company's site for its flagship, is marked company; a product on a large parent's site (Google, Microsoft) has no site figures. A column with no figures for this category is left out, and an empty cell means none were seen, not none exist. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
| Company and products | Share | Own site cited | Name searches, Google | AI search demand, est. | Organic visits | Paid search a month, est. | Google ads, last 30 days | Best Google position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft parent site Microsoft Power BI 56% | 56% | 240 | 2,240,000 | 403,136 | ||||
| Sigma sigmacomputing.com | 20% | 27 | 246,000 | 60,163 | 67,518 | |||
| Google cloud.google.com Looker Studio 12%, Looker 4% | 16% | 129 | 40,500 | 452 | 7,405,347 | |||
| Metabase metabase.com | 4% | 116 | 14,800 | 337 | 60,151 | 1 | ||
| Omni omni.co | 4% | 2 | 110,000 | 71,204 | 52,818 | 14 | ||
| Tableau tableau.com | 0% | 200 | 135,000 | 15,635 | 1,201,809 | $23 | 85 | 3 |
| Qlik Sense qlik.com Qlik Sense 0%, Qlik Cloud Analytics 0% | 0% | 88 | 3,600 | 379 | 705,831 | 55 | 1 | |
| ThoughtSpot thoughtspot.com | 0% | 50 | 8,100 | 269 | 207,491 | $2,050 | 75 | 9 |
| Lightdash | 0% | |||||||
| Sisense sisense.com | 0% | 34 | 2,400 | 140 | 29,511 | $243 | 15 |
Google's top ten for the two searches hold 16 sites; 4 of them are among the sites the models cited here (domo.com, qlik.com, tableau.com, thoughtspot.com). The first result for “best business intelligence and dashboard tool” is reddit.com.
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.ShowHide
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.
ShowHideModelDirect“What is the best business intelligence and dashboard tool for a mid-market B2B software company?”Paraphrase“Which data visualization platform would you recommend to a mid-sized B2B software company?”Comparative“What are the top business intelligence tools and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best business intelligence and dashboard tool for a company with a limited budget?”Scale-constrained“We are a 500 person company evaluating a business intelligence and dashboard tool. What should we look at?”Negative“Which business intelligence tools should I avoid or be cautious about?”
Claude Opus 5Microsoft Power BI, Omni, Sigmaagainst: Domo, Looker, TableauMicrosoft Power BIChangedagainst: Looker, MetabaseMicrosoft Power BIagainst: Apache SupersetLooker Studioagainst: Apache Superset, Tableau PublicMicrosoft Power BIagainst: Looker, Microsoft Power BI, QlikView, SAP Analytics Cloud, Tableau
One alternative
MetabaseTwo alternatives
Omni, SigmaFive alternatives
Looker, Metabase, Qlik Sense, Tableau, ThoughtSpotThree alternatives
Amazon QuickSight, Metabase, Microsoft Power BIThree alternatives
Looker, Microsoft Fabric, TableauClaude Opus 4.8Looker, Microsoft Power BIMicrosoft Power BIChangedMicrosoft Power BI, TableauMicrosoft Power BIno first choicenothing named
Three alternatives
Metabase, Sigma, TableauTwo alternatives
Looker, TableauThree alternatives
Looker, Qlik Sense, SigmaThree alternatives
Looker Studio, Metabase, Zoho AnalyticsGPT-6 AstraSigmaMicrosoft Power BIChangedLooker, Microsoft Power BI, TableauMicrosoft Power BIno first choiceagainst: Microsoft Power BI, Qlik Cloud Analytics, Self-hosted Apache Superset, Tableau, Tableau Public
Two alternatives
Looker, Microsoft Power BIFour alternatives
Looker, Power BI Embedded, Sigma, TableauSix alternatives
Looker Studio, Metabase, Qlik Cloud Analytics, Qlik Sense, Sigma, ThoughtSpotTwo alternatives
Looker Studio, MetabaseFive alternatives
Looker, Metabase, Microsoft Power BI, Sigma, TableauGPT-5.6 SolSigmaMicrosoft Power BIChangedMicrosoft Power BIMicrosoft Power BIagainst: Apache Superset, Tableauno first choiceagainst: Apache Superset, Domo, IBM Cognos, Looker, Looker Studio, Metabase Community Edition, Microsoft Fabric, Microsoft Power BI, QlikView, SAP BusinessObjects, Tableau, ThoughtSpot
Three alternatives
Looker, Metabase, Microsoft Power BIFour alternatives
Looker, Metabase, Tableau, ThoughtSpotEight alternatives
Domo, Looker, Qlik Cloud Analytics, Qlik Sense, SAP Analytics Cloud, Sigma, Tableau, ThoughtSpotTwo alternatives
Looker Studio, MetabaseGemini 3.1 ProSigmaMetabaseChangedMicrosoft Power BILooker Studio, Microsoft Power BISigmaagainst: Domo, IBM Cognos, Looker, Microsoft Power BI, Oracle BI, SAP BusinessObjects, Sisense, Tableau
Four alternatives
Lightdash, Looker, Metabase, Microsoft Power BIFive alternatives
GoodData, Looker, Microsoft Power BI, Preset, SisenseFive alternatives
Databricks, Looker, Qlik Sense, Tableau, ThoughtSpotThree alternatives
Apache Superset, Metabase, Zoho AnalyticsFive alternatives
Lightdash, Looker, Metabase, Microsoft Power BI, TableauPerplexity Sonar ProMicrosoft Power BIagainst: Domo, Qlik SenseMicrosoft Power BIHeldMicrosoft Power BI, TableauLooker Studio, Microsoft Power BIno first choiceagainst: IBM Cognos, Microsoft Power BI, SAP BusinessObjects, Tableau
Three alternatives
Looker, Power BI Embedded, TableauThree alternatives
Looker, Metabase, TableauFour alternatives
Looker, Qlik Sense, Sisense, ThoughtSpotOne alternative
MetabaseFour alternatives
Looker, Microsoft Power BI, Qlik Sense, TableauBold is the first choiceAlternatives are counted; the count opens them.What the answer argued against
The record
One row per call: the version string exactly as returned, whether the model searched, sources cited, and latency.
Thirty-six rows: every prompt, every model, every answer.
| Prompt | Model | Version string | Time (UTC) | Searched | Sources | Latency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct recommendation | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:29 | yes | 32 | 64 s |
| Direct recommendation | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 20:30 | no | 0 | 24 s |
| Direct recommendation | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 20:32 | yes | 6 | 38 s |
| Direct recommendation | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 20:33 | yes | 4 | 41 s |
| Direct recommendation | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 17:30 | yes | 6 | 39 s |
| Direct recommendation | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 20:30 | yes | 20 | 5 s |
| Paraphrase | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:35 | yes | 33 | 43 s |
| Paraphrase | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 20:36 | no | 0 | 15 s |
| Paraphrase | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 20:38 | yes | 5 | 25 s |
| Paraphrase | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 20:39 | yes | 6 | 23 s |
| Paraphrase | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 18:45 | no | 0 | 24 s |
| Paraphrase | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 20:37 | yes | 20 | 4 s |
| Comparative | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:41 | yes | 30 | 49 s |
| Comparative | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 20:43 | yes | 44 | 46 s |
| Comparative | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 20:45 | yes | 11 | 47 s |
| Comparative | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 20:47 | yes | 9 | 47 s |
| Comparative | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 18:46 | yes | 13 | 43 s |
| Comparative | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 20:44 | yes | 20 | 9 s |
| Budget constrained | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:49 | yes | 22 | 41 s |
| Budget constrained | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 20:54 | yes | 34 | 38 s |
| Budget constrained | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 20:55 | yes | 4 | 29 s |
| Budget constrained | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 20:56 | yes | 5 | 32 s |
| Budget constrained | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 18:47 | no | 0 | 21 s |
| Budget constrained | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-10 19:05 | yes | 20 | 5 s |
| Scale constrained | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:59 | yes | 36 | 58 s |
| Scale constrained | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 21:00 | no | 0 | 23 s |
| Scale constrained | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 21:01 | yes | 5 | 39 s |
| Scale constrained | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 21:03 | yes | 3 | 47 s |
| Scale constrained | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 18:48 | no | 0 | 27 s |
| Scale constrained | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-10 00:37 | yes | 20 | 8 s |
| Negative framing | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 21:06 | yes | 23 | 73 s |
| Negative framing | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 21:08 | yes | 37 | 37 s |
| Negative framing | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 21:10 | yes | 6 | 37 s |
| Negative framing | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 21:11 | yes | 9 | 43 s |
| Negative framing | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 18:50 | yes | 17 | 43 s |
| Negative framing | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 21:08 | yes | 20 | 6 s |
Normalization in this category
Every judgment call made between the raw labels and the numbers above, listed so it is visible and reversible.
ShowHide
Category-scoped readings
Fabric read as Microsoft Fabric
Qlik read as Qlik Sense
Qlik Cloud read as Qlik Sense
Unresolved, counted raw
None awaiting human review.
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.