Data virtualization · November 2026 Edition
Dremio vs Microsoft Fabric
One of fourteen models named Dremio first on the direct prompt; zero named Microsoft Fabric. Dremio was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Microsoft Fabric by eight and Dremio carries 44 labels and Microsoft Fabric 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share15%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate11%17%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels4412A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Dremio 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 Dremio · Denodo vs Microsoft Fabric · Dremio vs Starburst Galaxy
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.
DremioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsMicrosoft Fabric
Direct10
Paraphrase113 against Dremio · 1 against Microsoft Fabric
Comparative00
Budget-constrained50
Scale-constrained00
Negative202 against Dremio · 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 Dremio 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 | | |
Dremio Microsoft Fabric first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Dremio on the left and Microsoft Fabric on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Dremio and Microsoft Fabric stood in it.
Dremio first, Microsoft Fabric not the choice
1 of 14 modelsMicrosoft Fabric was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Dremio alternatives: Denodo, TIBCO Data Virtualization
Neither was the first choice, one was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniDenodo alternatives: Dremio, Starburst
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
DeepSeek V4 FlashDenodo alternatives: Dremio, Starburst
Kimi K2CData Virtuality, Starburst Galaxy alternatives: Dremio
GPT-6 LunaCData Virtuality alternatives: Denodo, Dremio
Muse Glimmer 30BDenodo alternatives: Dremio, Starburst Galaxy, TIBCO Data Virtualization
Neither was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Gemini 3.5 Flashno first choice alternatives: CData Connect Cloud, Cube, Denodo, Starburst Galaxy
Mistral SmallDenodo alternatives: Starburst Galaxy, TIBCO Data Virtualization, Trino
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
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
Dremio leads by thirteen points.
Dremio16%#3 of 14Microsoft Fabric4%#– of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Dremio leads by twelve points.
Dremio15%#2 of 10Microsoft Fabric2%#7 of 10Enterprise
The order flips: Microsoft Fabric leads at enterprise.
Microsoft Fabric4%#2 of 9Dremio2%#4 of 9What the models said about Dremio
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Weaker for pure federation (fewer connectors, ~28), struggles with high concurrency; cloud roadmap has been uncertain” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“criticized for relying heavily on per-user or pay-as-you-go compute credits, which can be costly” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · soft negative
“Recently acquired by SAP; future roadmap uncertain; more lakehouse-focused than pure federation” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Highly recommended for its ability to accelerate analytics on any data source and reduce warehouse bills, making it a strong choice for cost efficiency.” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
“Dremio is likely your best choice due to its transparent, consumption-based pricing model and modern architecture” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“If you want a free, full-featured platform with a great user interface, start with Dremio Community Edition.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget 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 DremioDenodo vs Microsoft FabricDremio vs Starburst GalaxyDremio vs TrinoDremio vs StarburstDremio vs CData VirtualityDremio vs Informatica Intelligent Data Management CloudStarburst Galaxy vs Microsoft FabricTrino vs Microsoft FabricStarburst vs Microsoft FabricCData Virtuality vs Microsoft FabricMicrosoft 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.