[unCited]

Subcategory · AI Citation Index

Warehouse Management (WMS)

The warehouse management software category exhibits strong enterprise vendor concentration, with Blue Yonder (56%), Manhattan Associates (52%), and NetSuite (51%) leading shortlist rates while all maintaining maximum model diversity scores of 4. The complete absence of prompt coverage (0%) indicates buyers discover these solutions through direct research, peer recommendations, or existing vendor relationships rather than AI-assisted searches. With 49 consensus brands but only 12 reaching evaluation stage, the category shows significant consideration set narrowing, suggesting buyers quickly filter to established enterprise platforms despite broad initial awareness.

163 discovery queries · 255 head-to-heads · refreshed Jun 29, 2026

Discovery stage

The shortlist

Across 163 buyer-style "Warehouse Management (WMS)" queries

Most cited · Warehouse Management (WMS)Live

Blue Yonder

blueyonder.com

Cited in 92 of 163 buyer questions for Warehouse Management (WMS) — surfaced by 3 of 3 AI engines.

ChatGPTGeminiClaude
Citation rate
56%
Visibility score54/100
See the full Blue Yonder profile→
3%13%22%32%41%Coverage — share of discovery prompts where the brand surfaces52%61%71%81%90%Engine diversity

Hover or click a logo to see brand details

X = coverage across discovery prompts · Y = engine diversity · Bubble size = total mentions
Tracked acrossChatGPT,Gemini,Claude

Get weekly AI visibility changes for Warehouse Management (WMS) sent to your inbox.

Score shifts, new entrants, citation gaps — every Monday.

Signal by intent

By topic

Top 5 most-cited brands per intent cluster. Brands with zero citations in a topic are not shown.

1Netsuite
6/6
2Microsoft
6/6
3Blue Yonder
6/6
4Manhattan Associates
6/6
5Fishbowl
5/6
1SAP
4/6
2Manhattan Associates
4/6
3Netsuite
4/6
4Blue Yonder
3/6
5Oracle
3/6
1Fishbowl
5/5
2Netsuite
5/5
3Manhattan Associates
5/5
4Blue Yonder
5/5
5SAP
5/5
1Blue Yonder
4/4
2Netsuite
4/4
3Fishbowl
4/4
4POINT
4/4
5Manhattan Associates
3/4
1Zebra
4/4
2SAP
4/4
3Manhattan Associates
4/4
4Blue Yonder
4/4
5Oracle
4/4
1SAP
4/4
2Locus
4/4
3Manhattan Associates
4/4
4Blue Yonder
4/4
5Oracle
4/4
1Netsuite
4/4
2SAP
4/4
3Manhattan Associates
4/4
4Blue Yonder
4/4
5Oracle
4/4
1Manhattan Associates
3/3
2Blue Yonder
3/3
3ShipHero
3/3
4Netsuite
3/3
5Microsoft
3/3
≥50% cited
25–49%
<25%
Topics are discovery-stage prompt clusters · warehouse-management

Evaluation stage

Head-to-head

How often AI cites each brand across uniform category evaluation prompts · median 14/100

0255075100Evaluation citation rate — % of category evaluation prompts citing this brand07132026Evaluation prompts cited inmedian citation ratemedian exposure

Hover or click a logo to see brand details

X = evaluation citation rate · Y = evaluation prompts cited in · Bubble size = citation exposure
Median citation rate 14/100

Each brand's score is the share of category evaluation prompts where AI cited them across all four engines — the same prompt pool for every brand. Brands above the median citation rate have stronger presence in evaluation-stage queries.

Citation sources

Where AI pulls citations from

575 citations captured across Warehouse Management (WMS) prompt runs.

Vendor pages

114

Product, help, and marketing pages from tracked vendors

Independent sources

187

Reviews, encyclopedias, forums, press — not vendor-owned

Buyer questions

What AI cites for top Warehouse Management (WMS) questions

Most-cited prompts across the buyer journey. Click any prompt to see the actual URLs AI engines link to.

Discovery

Buyers exploring the category

Evaluation

Buyers comparing options

Want to know if AI cites your brand for Warehouse Management (WMS)?

Free audit. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude.

Run an audit →

See the full Warehouse Management (WMS) leaderboard →