Primary Recommendations
2
Total Mentions
47
Win Rate
4%
Implementation Rate
50%
How well your documentation and SDK help AI assistants recommend and implement your tool
out of 100
How often AI writes code after recommending
How often selected as primary choice
% of prompt constraints addressed
Fewer gotchas = more AI-friendly
Consistency across assistants
Win Rate Trend
4% → 4%
Mention Volume
Weekly Activity
1 week of data
| Category | Recommended | Compared | Rejected | Total | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🗄 Database | 2 | 5 | 2 | 34 | 6% |
| 🔀 Cross-Category | - | - | - | 2 | 0% |
| unknown | - | - | - | 11 | 0% |
Constraints in prompts where this vendor was mentioned but a competitor was chosen
| Competitor | Wins Over You | Scenarios |
|---|---|---|
| Neon | 6 | Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling, Database Branching for Preview Environments |
| Turso | 2 | Offline-First Embedded Database with Sync |
You’re SQL‑centric, need RLS-like isolation, auditability, and want to avoid a wholesale data model rewrite. Supabase keeps Postgres while adding realtime channels and presence. It also supports US-only regions. ([supabase.com](https://supabase.com/docs/guides/platform/regions))
clean separation, independent keys, and least surprise for SOC 2 evidence
Prioritized by estimated impact on AI recommendation ranking • Based on 47 benchmark responses
neon beats you in 6 head-to-head scenarios. Their advantage: addressing serverless compatible, pgvector required, pitr backups.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "serverless compatible" is required. This constraint appears in 4 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 4× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 20% when "eu data residency" is required. This constraint appears in 5 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 4× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "pgvector required" is required. This constraint appears in 4 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 4× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "pitr backups" is required. This constraint appears in 4 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 4× in winning scenarios.
AI assistants recommend you but often don't write the setup code. This suggests SDK complexity or missing AI-friendly documentation.
You're mentioned in 34 database scenarios but only win 2. Analyze the constraints in losing scenarios for targeted improvements.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 33% when "staging prod separation" is required. This constraint appears in 3 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "offline first" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. turso addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "embedded sql" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. turso addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "conflict resolution" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. turso addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "encryption at rest" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. turso addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "hipaa adjacent" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. turso addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "edge compute" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. turso addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "branch per pr" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "real postgres" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
Your win rate drops from 4% to 0% when "pitr" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.
You're mentioned in 2 cross-category scenarios but only win 0. Analyze the constraints in losing scenarios for targeted improvements.
Only recommended on codex_cli (2×). claude_code and cursor are not recommending you — improve discoverability through documentation, npm package naming, and example code.
turso beats you in 2 head-to-head scenarios. Their advantage: addressing conflict resolution, encryption at rest, edge compute.