Vendor Observatory

Revealed Preference

Benchmarks
Vendor IntelPrompt Intel
Analytics
QuerySearchInsights
Data
VendorsPlatformsActionsSessions
v0.2.0
Home/Vendor Intel/CockroachDB

CockroachDB

cockroachlabs.com🗄 Database
ProfileAI-ReadinessTrendCategoriesConstraintsCompetitiveScenariosRecommendations

Recommendation Profile

Primary Recommendations

0

Total Mentions

7

Win Rate

0%

Implementation Rate

0%

AI-Readiness Score

How well your documentation and SDK help AI assistants recommend and implement your tool

15
Grade: F

out of 100

Implementation Rate(30%)0/100

How often AI writes code after recommending

Win Rate(20%)0/100

How often selected as primary choice

Constraint Coverage(20%)0/100

% of prompt constraints addressed

Gotcha Avoidance(15%)100/100

Fewer gotchas = more AI-friendly

Cross-Platform(15%)0/100

Consistency across assistants

Trend

Win Rate Trend

→+0%

0% → 0%

Mention Volume

7(+0 vs prior)

Weekly Activity

1 week of data

Category Breakdown

CategoryRecommendedComparedRejectedTotalWin Rate
🗄 Database-2-70%

Constraint Scorecard

✗ Constraints When Vendor Lost

Constraints in prompts where this vendor was mentioned but a competitor was chosen

serverless compatible7×
pgvector required7×
eu data residency7×
pitr backups7×

Competitive Landscape

CompetitorWins Over YouScenarios
Neon4Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling

Head-to-Head: CockroachDB vs Neon

CockroachDB: 0 wins
Neon: 4 wins
Ties: 3
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling

✗ Scenarios Lost (4)

Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ lost to Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ lost to Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ lost to Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ lost to Neon

🎯 Actionable Recommendations

Prioritized by estimated impact on AI recommendation ranking • Based on 7 benchmark responses

P1

Address "serverless compatible" to capture 4 additional scenarios

HIGH

Your win rate drops from 0% to 0% when "serverless compatible" is required. This constraint appears in 4 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 4× in winning scenarios.

Evidence
Win rate impact: 0% → 0% (delta: +0%)
serverless compatible
vs Neon
P1

Close gap with neon (4 losses)

HIGH

neon beats you in 4 head-to-head scenarios. Their advantage: addressing serverless compatible, pgvector required, eu data residency.

Evidence
Serverless Postgres with Connection PoolingServerless Postgres with Connection PoolingServerless Postgres with Connection PoolingServerless Postgres with Connection Pooling
serverless compatiblepgvector requiredeu data residencypitr backups
vs Neon
P2

Address "pgvector required" to capture 4 additional scenarios

HIGH

Your win rate drops from 0% to 0% when "pgvector required" is required. This constraint appears in 4 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 4× in winning scenarios.

Evidence
Win rate impact: 0% → 0% (delta: +0%)
pgvector required
vs Neon
P2

Address "eu data residency" to capture 4 additional scenarios

HIGH

Your win rate drops from 0% to 0% when "eu data residency" is required. This constraint appears in 4 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 4× in winning scenarios.

Evidence
Win rate impact: 0% → 0% (delta: +0%)
eu data residency
vs Neon
P2

Address "pitr backups" to capture 4 additional scenarios

HIGH

Your win rate drops from 0% to 0% when "pitr backups" is required. This constraint appears in 4 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 4× in winning scenarios.

Evidence
Win rate impact: 0% → 0% (delta: +0%)
pitr backups
vs Neon
Show 1 more recommendation
P3

Improve 0% win rate in database

MEDIUM

You're mentioned in 7 database scenarios but only win 0. Analyze the constraints in losing scenarios for targeted improvements.