Session replay and heatmaps · November 2026 Edition
Mouseflow vs Contentsquare
Two of fourteen models named Mouseflow first on the direct prompt; zero named Contentsquare. Mouseflow was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Contentsquare by thirteen and Mouseflow carries 31 labels and Contentsquare 30, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Paris, France, founded 2008. Named in seven categories this edition.
First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate19%23%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#8A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.
Labels3130A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Mouseflow reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Microsoft Clarity was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. Microsoft Clarity vs Mouseflow · Microsoft Clarity vs Contentsquare · Hotjar vs Mouseflow
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the session replay and heatmaps page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
MouseflowFirst choices, of fourteen modelsContentsquare
Direct203 against Contentsquare
Paraphrase012 against Contentsquare
Comparative011 against Contentsquare
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained00
Negative006 against Mouseflow · 1 against Contentsquare
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Mouseflow and Contentsquare stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | |||||
| Kimi K2 | | |||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | | |
Mouseflow Contentsquare first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Mouseflow on the left and Contentsquare on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Mouseflow and Contentsquare stood in it.
Mouseflow first, Contentsquare not the choice
2 of 14 modelsContentsquare was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Hotjar, Mouseflow alternatives: Fullstory, Microsoft Clarity
Llama 4 MaverickMouseflow alternatives: Fullstory, Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, UXCam
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniFullstory alternatives: Contentsquare, Glassbox, Hotjar, LogRocket
Perplexity SonarHotjar alternatives: Amplitude Session Replay, Microsoft Clarity, Mouseflow
Grok 4.20Hotjar alternatives: Microsoft Clarity, Mouseflow
DeepSeek V4 FlashHotjar alternatives: Amplitude Session Replay, Fullstory, LogRocket, Microsoft Clarity, Mouseflow
Kimi K2PostHog alternatives: LogRocket, Mouseflow
GLM 4.7 FlashXMicrosoft Clarity alternatives: Contentsquare, Glassbox, LogRocket, UXCam
GPT-6 LunaFullstory alternatives: Contentsquare, PostHog
Muse Glimmer 30BFullstory alternatives: Contentsquare, Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity
Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Gemini 3.5 FlashPostHog alternatives: Fullstory, Hotjar, LogRocket, Microsoft Clarity
Mistral SmallHotjar alternatives: Fullstory, LogRocket, Microsoft Clarity, PostHog
Qwen 3.7 FlashLogRocket alternatives: Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, PostHog
MiniMax M2.5Microsoft Clarity alternatives: Fullstory, Hotjar, LogRocket
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
Mouseflow0%#7 of 11Contentsquare0%#10 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Mouseflow leads by two points.
Mouseflow4%#6 of 16Contentsquare2%#8 of 16Enterprise
The order flips: Contentsquare leads at enterprise.
Contentsquare14%#2 of 12Mouseflow2%#10 of 12What the models said about Mouseflow
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“groups Mouseflow, LogRocket and Smartlook together with Hotjar/Clarity/FullStory as tools that record detailed interactions and raise wiretap liability concerns” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“The risk often comes from *how* top-tier tools (like FullStory, Hotjar, Mouseflow, or Crazy Egg) are implemented” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Others in the same ecosystem: Crazy Egg, Mouseflow, Inspectlet, Lucky Orange, LogRocket (for web)... still risky” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Mouseflow appears to be the most frequently cited choice specifically for mid-market teams.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Mouseflow - Best overall for CRO, friction analysis, and GDPR compliance.” Llama 4 Maverick · direct prompt · first choice
“Choose Mouseflow instead when the primary objective is optimizing lead forms, funnels, and conversion paths” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · alternative
What the models said about Contentsquare
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Avoid overly enterprise tools like Contentsquare unless you have very high traffic/budgets.” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · hard negative
“Instead of buying an expensive enterprise platform (like full Contentsquare or Quantum Metric which can run $30k–$50k+/year)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“warned about common misreading errors (cherry-picking, streetlight effects) that can lead to misleading conclusions” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“My default pick: Contentsquare Growth for a mid-sized B2B company” GPT-6 Luna · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Best enterprise suite: Contentsquare” GPT-5.4 mini · comparative prompt · first choice
“Choose Contentsquare, Glassbox, or Quantum Metric when scale, enterprise governance, and advanced experience analytics justify a larger platform.” Perplexity Sonar · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared
Microsoft Clarity vs MouseflowMicrosoft Clarity vs ContentsquareHotjar vs MouseflowHotjar vs ContentsquareDealfront vs MouseflowDealfront vs ContentsquareFullstory vs MouseflowFullstory vs ContentsquarePostHog vs MouseflowPostHog vs ContentsquareMouseflow vs LogRocketLogRocket vs ContentsquareAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full session replay standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.