Buyer prompt · published evidence
Which criteria reveal lock-in and portability risk when choosing an AI coding tool, including editor, model, data, and workflow control?
An exact prompt-level view of which reviewed brands surfaced and which public URLs the configured AI models cited. No answer text or tenant data is published.
- Intent
- commercial
- Model providers
- 3
- Categories
- 1
- Last observed
- Aug 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC
Competitive outcome
Brands surfaced
Ordered by provider breadth, then total mentions and owned-domain citations. A mention is not an endorsement or a position claim.
| # | Brand | Category | Providers | Mentions | Owned citations | Provider evidence |
|---|
Model comparison
Answer matrix
One row per configured provider and category snapshot. Hashes prove answer identity without publishing stored answer text.
| Provider | Model version | Category | Brands surfaced | Citations | Unique domains | Answer hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Openai | openai/gpt-4o-mini | AI developer tools | None observed | 10 | 10 | f5a73bd5…d4904 |
| Anthropic | anthropic/claude-haiku-4-5 | AI developer tools | None observed | 0 | 0 | cbc2579d…25798 |
| Gemini | google/gemini-2.5-flash | AI developer tools | None observed | 8 | 8 | 20d515dc…e2a54 |
URL-derived citations
Sources cited
Hostnames are derived from the returned public URLs. Best position is the smallest citation position observed.