Index › Products › legacy Oracle systems · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

legacy Oracle systems

1Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

1 / 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. legacy Oracle systems was named 1 time in Internal communications, where Happeo led with 16%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market76 of 79

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In internal communications · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named legacy Oracle systems 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
Internal communications and intranet	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	76 of 79	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Happeo at 16%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for legacy Oracle systems 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 legacy Oracle systems across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Examples: Older SAP versions, legacy Oracle systems, Adobe Flash-based intranets” Kimi K2 · Internal communications · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as legacy Oracle systems, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and legacy Oracle systems was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Adobe Flash-based intranets1 of 10Not among the top eight

Microsoft SharePoint1 of 10Not among the top eight

Older SAP versions1 of 10Not among the top eight

Windows Server 2012-based platforms1 of 10Not 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 legacy Oracle systems. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 1 of the 1 answers that named legacy Oracle systems and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

agilityportal.io1

concretecms.com1

contrastsecurity.com1

cyber.gc.ca1

dotcms.com1

elcom.com.au1

enisa.europa.eu1

hubengage.com1

learn.microsoft.com1

mangoapps.com1

No domain is on file for legacy Oracle systems, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

agilityportal.io/blog/intranet-security-outsourced-cybersecurity1

agilityportal.io/blog/why-sharepoint-is-failing-modern-intranets-and-which-no-code-intrane1

concretecms.com/about/blog/intranets/why-employees-dont-use-the-intranet-understanding-the1

contrastsecurity.com/hubfs/Understanding-the-Risks_WhitePaper_042020_Final.pdf1

contrastsecurity.com/whitepaper/understanding-the-risks-of-open-source-software1

cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/security-considerations-when-using-open-source-software-itsap100591

dotcms.com/blog/intranet-security-best-practices1

elcom.com.au/resources/blog/intranet-challenges1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Follow legacy Oracle systems

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 legacy Oracle systems'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 legacy Oracle systems, 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 legacy Oracle systems by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where legacy Oracle systems 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 legacy Oracle systems, 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.