Gane Index
All indexesEvery index and its categoriesGTMMarketing, sales, customer and revenue operations softwareITSecurity, IT operations, cloud, developer and data softwareHRHR, payroll, recruiting, performance and learning softwareFinanceAccounting, planning, spend, billing and treasury software
Claim your listing
Index › IT › Data platform › Data virtualization › Starburst vs Microsoft Fabric
Data virtualization · November 2026 Edition

Starburst vs Microsoft Fabric

Zero of fourteen models named Starburst first on the direct prompt; zero named Microsoft Fabric. Starburst was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Microsoft Fabric by eight and Starburst carries 31 labels and Microsoft Fabric 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Starburst

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

Microsoft Fabric

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share6%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate6%17%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels3112A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Starburst 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 Starburst · Denodo vs Microsoft Fabric · Dremio vs Starburst

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.
StarburstFirst choices, of fourteen modelsMicrosoft Fabric
Direct00
Paraphrase311 against Microsoft Fabric
Comparative00
Budget-constrained001 against Starburst
Scale-constrained00
Negative101 against Starburst · 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.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Starburst and Microsoft Fabric were named in the same answer fifteen times, of the 83 answers naming Starburst and the 45 naming Microsoft Fabric. In those answers Microsoft Fabric took the first choice two times and Starburst three.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Starburst and Microsoft Fabric stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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
Starburst Microsoft Fabric first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Starburst on the left and Microsoft Fabric on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Starburst and Microsoft Fabric stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 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
DeepSeek V4 FlashDenodo alternatives: Dremio, Starburst

Neither was named

11 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Dremio alternatives: Denodo, TIBCO Data Virtualization
Gemini 3.5 Flashno first choice alternatives: CData Connect Cloud, Cube, Denodo, Starburst Galaxy
Grok 4.20Denodo alternatives: CData Virtuality, Data Virtuality, Dremio, TIBCO Data Virtualization
Mistral SmallDenodo alternatives: Starburst Galaxy, TIBCO Data Virtualization, Trino
Llama 4 MaverickDenodo
Qwen 3.7 FlashDenodo alternatives: Data Virtuality, Starburst Galaxy
Kimi K2CData Virtuality, Starburst Galaxy alternatives: Dremio
GLM 4.7 FlashXDenodo alternatives: Data Virtuality, TIBCO Data Virtualization
MiniMax M2.5Denodo, Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud alternatives: Data Virtuality, TIBCO Software
GPT-6 LunaCData Virtuality alternatives: Denodo, Dremio
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.
Starburst4%#6 of 14
Microsoft Fabric4%#– of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Starburst leads by four points.
Starburst6%#5 of 10
Microsoft Fabric2%#7 of 10
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Microsoft Fabric leads at enterprise.
Microsoft Fabric4%#2 of 9
Starburst2%#3 of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Starburst

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“Starburst Galaxy at 2% first-choice share with 36% negative rate, 11 labels, “criticized challenger”” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“can be cost-prohibitive” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“I recommend Starburst (built on Trino) as the top choice for a data fabric focused on federated queries.” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Denodo, Dremio, Starburst Galaxy, and AtScale tend to rank higher” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · first choice
“start with Starburst Galaxy for managed federation” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase 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 StarburstDenodo vs Microsoft FabricDremio vs StarburstDremio vs Microsoft FabricStarburst Galaxy vs StarburstStarburst Galaxy vs Microsoft FabricTrino vs StarburstTrino vs Microsoft FabricStarburst vs CData VirtualityStarburst vs Informatica Intelligent Data Management CloudCData 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.