Northwind Labs
Distributed tracing and observability for engineering teams. Series B, 140 people, sells to platform and SRE teams.
Where you stand
Northwind Labs scores 61.4 on the Fameproof index — the mean of the three model scores, out of 100. Would enter the Companies board at 34 of 90 — mid-table, below every competitor in this report.
The trend matters more than the number. You are down 1.2 over 30 days, and the drop is concentrated in one model — see below.
Model by model
Each model is scored on four measurements: how often it names you at all, where in the answer you land, whether what it says is factually right, and how it feels about you.
Your best model. Claude knows what you do and describes it correctly, but rarely leads with you.
Your weakest model and the one that fell this month. Two of the three factual errors below come from here.
Mentions you at a reasonable rate but consistently as an alternative, never as the recommendation.
Prompt by prompt
The core of the report. Every prompt in your panel, your position in each model's answer, and who took the top slot when you did not — grouped by where the reader is in the buying journey. Twelve of 1,200 are shown here; the delivered report is the full table as a spreadsheet.
Reader is describing a problem, not shopping yet.
Reader is comparing named options.
Reader is close to buying — price, compliance, support.
Your visibility falls from 100% at awareness to 40% at decision. The models introduce you while the reader is describing a problem and drop you once they are choosing a vendor — you are strongest exactly where nobody is buying, and weakest on price, compliance and support.
One answer in full
Every other section is our reading of the evidence. This is the evidence: one captured answer, reproduced whole and untrimmed, so you can judge it yourself. The delivered report carries one of these for each of your worst-performing prompts.
You are not named once. This is a consideration-stage prompt in your own category, and the reader finishes the answer without learning that you exist.
Contoso is named twice and gets the closing recommendation. The phrase “clearest pricing documentation” traces directly to the pricing page problem in fix 01 — your own tier table is not fetchable, theirs is.
The three-way framing (managed premium / managed cheap / self-hosted) is the shape of nearly every consideration answer in your panel. You are not competing for the top slot in it; you are absent from the frame.
Who takes your prompts
Benchmarked against the competitors you named on the request form, plus anyone the models bring up unprompted more than five times.
What the models get wrong
Every factual claim the panel produced about you was checked against your own published material. These are the ones that are wrong and repeated.
“Northwind Labs starts at around $99 per seat per month.”
“I am not aware of a SOC 2 report for Northwind Labs.”
“Northwind Labs is a log management tool.”
What they cite instead
When a model answers a prompt in your category, these are the pages it leans on. Citations counted across the full 1,200-prompt run.
Your own pages
47 citations
Everything else
247 citations
Contoso maintains a comparison page for every rival, including you. Those pages are cited 88 times across the panel; you have no equivalent, so the models describe your product in your competitor’s words.
The fix list
Written by the analyst who ran your panel, ordered by what moves the index fastest. Every item traces back to a specific prompt or citation above.
Put the price in the HTML
Server-render the tier table, or add a plain-text pricing summary above it. The $99-per-seat error is the single most repeated wrong claim in the panel and it disappears the moment the correct figure is fetchable.
State the SOC 2 in crawlable text
One sentence on an ungated trust page — certification, type, date, auditor. Gated PDFs are invisible to every model in this panel.
Lead with tracing, not “telemetry”
Your category sentence is doing the damage. Say “distributed tracing” in the homepage headline, the meta description and the docs landing page. All three models take their category label from those three places.
Publish your own comparison pages
You appear in Contoso’s comparisons and they appear in nobody’s. Three honest pages — vs Contoso, vs Fabrikam, vs open-source stack — change which text the models are reasoning from.
Fix the price-led prompts you are absent from
You are missing entirely from “cheapest way to store high-cardinality metrics” on all three. A documented cost-per-cardinality page would put you in a prompt family Fabrikam currently owns outright.
Earn a second independent source
G2 and r/devops carry your competitors and barely mention you. This is slow and cannot be bought credibly, but it is what separates a 61 from a 79 over a year.
Fixes 1–3 are copy and template changes. On the last four audits where a client shipped the equivalent set, the index moved 6–11 points within two re-runs. We re-run your panel weekly for 8 weeks after delivery and email you the diff.
This, about your company.
Same panel, same eight sections, your numbers — in 3 business days. We confirm the prompt panel with you by email before anything is charged.