2 categories · RankedPort
Port is a SaaS internal developer portal for engineering teams focused on developer experience · port.io ↗
Leads at small business. Ranked 1 of 59 for enterprise buyers.
The standing depends on who is buying. Every model is asked the same questions for each company size.
Ranked first. Next is Backstage at 11%.
Ranked first. Next is Backstage at 12%. 10 of 14 models made it the first choice when asked directly.
Ranked first. Next is Backstage at 24%.
Why models recommend it
“Port — Best Overall Value for Small-to-Mid Teams ... Port's free tier (up to 15 users) is the sweet spot between capability and cost.”Kimi K2 · Budget-constrained question · first choice
“Port is recommended for mid-sized B2B companies as it provides a good balance of time-to-value, governance, and mid-market pricing.”Llama 4 Maverick · Paraphrase question · first choice
“Choose Port for balanced, quick-start portals with modern features like AI—often recommended as the "best for most teams"”Grok 4.20 · Comparative question · first choice
“For the best balance of cost and ease of use, Port is the top recommendation, especially for small to medium teams.”Mistral Small · Budget-constrained question · first choice
What gives them pause
“Proprietary Closed‑Source Portals (e.g., Port.io, OpsLevel, Atlassian Compass) | *Vendor lock‑in.*”GLM 4.7 FlashX · Negative question · warning
“you should carefully verify Port's compatibility with your infrastructure before committing fully”Mistral Small · Negative question · warning
“proprietary portals (Port.io, OpsLevel, Atlassian Compass, etc.) carry vendor lock-in risks”Mistral Small · Negative question · warning
“Proprietary SaaS IDPs with Rigid Lock-In (Port, Cortex, OpsLevel)... Linear Pricing Traps”Gemini 3.5 Flash · Negative question · warning
Also on the shortlist
The products named in the same answers as Port, over the 215 answers that named it, and how often each was the first choice instead.
| Product | Named together | Picked instead | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 190 | 31 | Compare → | |
| 143 | 2 | Compare → | |
| 120 | 1 | Compare → | |
| 98 | 8 | Compare → | |
| 94 | 5 | Compare → | |
| 68 | 1 | View → | |
| 41 | 1 | View → | |
| 36 | 3 | View → | |
| 14 | 2 | View → | |
| 14 | 1 | View → |
What the models named instead of Port →
A side-by-side page exists where both products are among a category's top eight.
At a glance
Stated on Port's own site, not checked by Gane.
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, ISO 27001, CCPA, OWASP Top 10
- Hosting
- USA, Ireland, Germany, Europe
- Customers named
- dLocal
How this is measured
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 →Sources returned with these answers
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 193 of the 215 answers that named Port and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
474 of the 606 domain citations in answers naming Port came from a third party's page. Fifty were to the publisher's own pages (the Gane Index), which the models cite like any other source; they are not counted as a third party.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Warning | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 5 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Grok 4.20 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Mistral Small | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
What it publishes
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-11 to 2026-10 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report or ebook | 169 | undated | AI coding, APM | ||
| Blog | 97 | 90 | 2026-10-05 | Developer portals | |
| News or press | 24 | 7 | 2026-09-22 | ||
| Conference or event | 12 | 1 | 2026-08-10 | Developer portals | |
| Comparison | 11 | 6 | 2026-09-29 | ||
| Case study | 10 | 2 | 2026-08-10 | ||
| Template or tool | 8 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 4 | 1 | 2026-08-10 |
Most recent
- 2026-10-05Splitting integration pipeline blog
- 2026-10-04Github external custom properties blog
- 2026-10-04Jfrog agent skills registry blog
- 2026-10-04Port plugin for coding agents blog
- 2026-10-01Gartner names port ai software factory platform blog
- 2026-10-01Scaling agentic sdlc without losing control blog
Events in person
- June 10, 2026Practical AI in Platform EngineeringTel Aviv · took part
As the event pages on port.io state them, read October 5, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page port.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 October 5, 2026.