Every category where a model named CyberGrants for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Employee giving and volunteering	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	70 of 70	46%	13	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for CyberGrants yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated CyberGrants across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	1	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	0	2
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	1	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase6 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative11 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative28 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Best for: Organizations that want employee giving + volunteering + grantmaking in a broader CSR stack.” GPT-5.4 mini · Giving & volunteering · comparative prompt · alternative

“Grantmaking-heavy corporate foundations: → CyberGrants/Bonterra” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Giving & volunteering · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“Platforms like Benevity, YourCause, CyberGrants that charge extra for support, have high transaction fees, and require complex onboarding” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Giving & volunteering · negative prompt · hard negative

“Complex admin experience — requires support intervention for routine updates” Kimi K2 · Giving & volunteering · negative prompt · hard negative

“significantly cheaper than enterprise platforms (Benevity, YourCause, CyberGrants) which typically run $35,000–$100,000+/year” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Giving & volunteering · budget prompt · soft negative

“long-time users frequently report that the platform feels dated ("legacy") and that customer support is reactive” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Giving & volunteering · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as CyberGrants, over the 28 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CyberGrants was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Benevity Enterprise Impact Platform27 of 288Not among the top eight

YourCause16 of 280Not among the top eight

Groundswell10 of 283Not among the top eight

Uncommon Giving9 of 284Not among the top eight

Millie9 of 283Not among the top eight

Selflessly7 of 283Not among the top eight

Goodera7 of 282Not among the top eight

POINT6 of 282Not among the top eight

Deed6 of 281Not among the top eight

Bonterra5 of 280Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named CyberGrants. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 26 of the 28 answers that named CyberGrants and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com14

uncommongiving.com14

yourcause.com14

benevity.com12

bonterratech.com12

groundswell.io9

guideflow.com8

intervue.io7

momogood.com7

submittable.com7

No domain is on file for CyberGrants, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

uncommongiving.com/uncommon-blog/csr-software12

intervue.io/blog/best-csr-software7

momogood.com/blog/best-employee-giving-platforms7

yourcause.com/articles/best-corporate-volunteering-software7

g2.com/categories/corporate-volunteering-platform/enterprise6

guideflow.com/blog/corporate-giving-software6

guideflow.com/blog/csr-software6

bonterratech.com/blog/corporate-giving-platforms5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where CyberGrants stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 2,900 a month (“cybergrants”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 129 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 70 of 70 in giving & volunteering

Segment leader

22%

Millie

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 28 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

Names read as CyberGrants

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as CyberGrants; a claim can dispute any of them.

CyberGrants (now Bonterra) 2Bonterra Deed / CyberGrants 1CyberGrants (by Bonterra) 1Cybergrants 1

Follow CyberGrants

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when CyberGrants's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as CyberGrants, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for CyberGrants by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where CyberGrants is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name CyberGrants, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.