Data virtualization · November 2026 Edition
CData Virtuality vs Microsoft Fabric
Two of fourteen models named CData Virtuality first on the direct prompt; zero named Microsoft Fabric. CData Virtuality was named by seven of the fourteen models and Microsoft Fabric by eight and both carry 12 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate17%17%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels1212Equal, which is what makes the shares comparable.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, CData Virtuality reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Denodo was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Denodo vs CData Virtuality · Denodo vs Microsoft Fabric · Dremio vs CData Virtuality
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 data virtualization page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
CData VirtualityFirst choices, of fourteen modelsMicrosoft Fabric
Direct20
Paraphrase011 against Microsoft Fabric
Comparative00
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained00
Negative102 against CData Virtuality · 1 against Microsoft Fabric
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 CData Virtuality and Microsoft Fabric 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 | |
CData Virtuality Microsoft Fabric first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, CData Virtuality on the left and Microsoft Fabric on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where CData Virtuality and Microsoft Fabric stood in it.
CData Virtuality first, Microsoft Fabric not the choice
2 of 14 modelsMicrosoft Fabric was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Kimi K2CData Virtuality, Starburst Galaxy alternatives: Dremio
GPT-6 LunaCData Virtuality alternatives: Denodo, Dremio
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Perplexity SonarDenodo alternatives: CData Virtuality, Dremio, Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud, Microsoft Fabric, SAP HANA, Starburst
Grok 4.20Denodo alternatives: CData Virtuality, Data Virtuality, Dremio, TIBCO Data Virtualization
Neither was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Dremio alternatives: Denodo, TIBCO Data Virtualization
GPT-5.4 miniDenodo alternatives: Dremio, Starburst
Gemini 3.5 Flashno first choice alternatives: CData Connect Cloud, Cube, Denodo, Starburst Galaxy
Mistral SmallDenodo alternatives: Starburst Galaxy, TIBCO Data Virtualization, Trino
DeepSeek V4 FlashDenodo alternatives: Dremio, Starburst
Llama 4 MaverickDenodo
Qwen 3.7 FlashDenodo alternatives: Data Virtuality, Starburst Galaxy
GLM 4.7 FlashXDenodo alternatives: Data Virtuality, TIBCO Data Virtualization
MiniMax M2.5Denodo, Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud alternatives: Data Virtuality, TIBCO Software
Muse Glimmer 30BDenodo alternatives: Dremio, Starburst Galaxy, TIBCO Data Virtualization
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.
CData Virtuality4%#7 of 14Microsoft Fabric4%#– of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
CData Virtuality leads by two points.
CData Virtuality4%#6 of 10Microsoft Fabric2%#7 of 10Enterprise
The order flips: Microsoft Fabric leads at enterprise.
Microsoft Fabric4%#2 of 9CData Virtuality0%#– of 9What the models said about CData Virtuality
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“CData Virtuality or driver-centric products for complex governance... verify row- and column-level security, lineage, policy enforcement” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“falls short in key areas that make the difference to your business finding, accessing and utilizing the data it needs” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-market B2B companies, I recommend starting with CData Virtuality or Starburst Galaxy” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
“My default pick for a mid-market B2B company is CData Virtuality” GPT-6 Luna · direct prompt · first choice
“Logical Data Virtualization Leaders: Denodo, CData Virtuality.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
What the models said about Microsoft Fabric
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Microsoft Fabric or Databricks used as "pure" virtualization by default... can create unnecessary platform, storage, and skills overhead” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“Capacity-based pricing (~$32K-$100K+ annually); requires architecture rebuild if migrating” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Top Recommendation: Microsoft Fabric (with Starburst Galaxy integration)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Choose Microsoft Fabric/Azure or AWS services when minimizing cloud-platform fragmentation matters most.” Perplexity Sonar · comparative prompt · alternative
“wants an integrated Microsoft analytics platform rather than a source-agnostic virtualization layer” Perplexity Sonar · paraphrase prompt · alternative
Also compared
Denodo vs CData VirtualityDenodo vs Microsoft FabricDremio vs CData VirtualityDremio vs Microsoft FabricStarburst Galaxy vs CData VirtualityStarburst Galaxy vs Microsoft FabricTrino vs CData VirtualityTrino vs Microsoft FabricStarburst vs CData VirtualityStarburst vs Microsoft FabricCData Virtuality vs Informatica Intelligent Data Management CloudMicrosoft Fabric vs Informatica Intelligent Data Management CloudAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full data virtualization 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.