Gartner readily admits these are not exhaustive analyses.
And folks have told me that they don’t include early-stage companies and look for those with traction in the enterprise (revenues, market share, etc.) That’s sorta fair. Although in nascent markets with emerging players, I’m not sure how one assesses market share with any accuracy.
Also, among the 90% of the market they missed (136 companies), there are several well-funded companies that have enterprise traction. So while the market of credible players is not 150, it’s way more than 14.
Some folks have said their analysts “curate” but that’s a fancy word for miss in this case if you see the aforementioned note re: companies with traction.
So what gives?
The criteria around completeness of vision and ability to execute which are the 2 axes of the quadrant try to look rigorous and scientific, but they’re so nebulous as to be worth little.
Their model is scale-challenged (analysts can’t really analyze 50-75 vendors ) so I appreciate that their quadrants will not be 100% complete. But the magnitude of the incompleteness struck me.
If anyone has insights to share, please send them on.
BTW, I’m sure I’ll get lots of emails saying Gartner is pay-to-play. That seems to be a common knock but not all that helpful to the question-at-hand. I’m trying to understand why customers, beyond the cover-your-a__ value these MQs might provide, trust something that is so incomplete.
Countries with economies greater than California are shown in red below.
(h/t Max Galka)
Kingdom of tech
We mapped out a network of Saudi Arabian investors (public and private) as well as their private market investments between January 2012 and January 2017. Saudi Aramco Energy Ventures (SAEV) is one of the most active Saudi investors, with a total of 20 investments since 2012.
CB Insights data is the most trusted by those in the industry and the media. A few recent hits.
Business Insider. Kevin Tran (@ktran223) reports on Samsung’s moves in the VR space and cites CB Insights investment data.