REVIEWS.io is a review collection and reputation management platform for brands · reviews.io ↗
The standing depends on who is buying. Every model is asked the same questions for each company size.
Praising.ai is first at 21%.
Birdeye is first at 19%. 0 of 14 models made it the first choice when asked directly.
Birdeye is first at 29%.
“Reviews.io stands out as the best online review management platform for companies with a limited budget”Grok 4.20 · Budget-constrained question · first choice
“REVIEWS.io is the strongest overall choice if you sell online: plans start at about $29/month”Perplexity Sonar · Budget-constrained question · first choice
“If you run an online shop: Go with REVIEWS.io.”Gemini 3.5 Flash · Budget-constrained question · first choice
“Prompt Reviews or Reviews.io offer better automation and broader platform coverage”MiniMax M2.5 · Budget-constrained question · alternative
“They aren't direct substitutes for a local business review inbox.”GPT-6 Luna · Comparative question · warning
The products named in the same answers as REVIEWS.io, over the 36 answers that named it, and how often each was the first choice instead.
| Product | Named together | Picked instead | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 1 | View → | |
| 22 | 5 | Compare → | |
| 18 | 0 | View → | |
| 13 | 8 | View → | |
| 11 | 2 | View → | |
| 9 | 0 | Compare → | |
| 8 | 0 | Compare → | |
| 7 | 2 | Compare → | |
| 7 | 0 | View → | |
| 7 | 0 | View → |
What the models named instead of REVIEWS.io →
A side-by-side page exists where both products are among a category's top eight.
Stated on REVIEWS.io's own site, not checked by Gane.
Fourteen AI models from 12 labs are asked the same buying questions six ways, for three company sizes. Standings refresh every edition.
Gane sells AI visibility software. No company can pay to change a result.
Read the method →Fourteen of the fourteen models returned a source list in this edition: five return the pages they cited and nine the search results they consulted. These counts come from 36 of the 36 answers that named REVIEWS.io and are not a share of its labels.
132 of the 132 domain citations in answers naming REVIEWS.io came from a third party's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Warning | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report or ebook | 63 | 23 | 2026-09-29 | ||
| Comparison | 15 | 3 | 2026-09-25 | ||
| Conference or event | 7 | 5 | 2026-09-29 | ||
| Template or tool | 3 | 0 | 2024-04-24 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 2 | 2 | 2026-09-18 | ||
| Case study | 1 | undated | |||
| News or press | 1 | 1 | 2026-09-27 |
Every page reviews.io 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.