Clear. Actionable. Defensible.

GigaOm Research Methodology


GigaOm’s mission is to empower technology decision-makers and practitioners with actionable information to inspire meaningful decisions. Our methodological process aligns and upholds our core values and we can and should be judged on the quality and integrity of our research and its value. We expect our research to be clear, defensible, actionable, and useful to our strategic practitioner audience and invite improvements to meet our quality and value bar. Our analysts come from a broad pool of practitioners representing the industry and our methodology and review process ensures that our reports are rigorous and independent. GigaOm conducts research using a consistently applied mixed-method approach.

The GigaOm Key Criteria and Radar reports provide an overview of a market and its underlying technology, identify leading offerings, and help decision-makers evaluate solutions so they can make a more informed investment decision.


The Key Criteria report provides a detailed overview of a technology sector. It acts as a buyer’s guide and defines the critical functional and non-functional requirements that IT decision-makers should consider in selecting solutions.


The Radar report applies this decision framework against a detailed evaluation of the vendors operating in the space to produce a rigorous, criteria-based assessment of available solutions.

GigaOm reports are written for an enterprise-level organization (unless otherwise specified), according to general themes it experiences today. We assume this business is not in a highly regulated industry, and does not make a product that would require specialist solutions. We recommend readers apply their own needs assessment on top of our own, to take into account their own specific user requirements.

We evaluate products that are generally available at the time of our project kickoff, and we do not consider product changes that occur after our research window closes in our evaluation.

To avoid unintentional bias, the report author(s) will not participate in additional engagement outside the research process (for example, inquiries, advisory, and so forth) with a vendor the analyst is currently evaluating.