Magic Quadrant

The Gartner Magic Quadrant (MQ) is the brand name for a series of market research reports published by Gartner Inc., a US-based research and advisory firm. According to Gartner, the Magic Quadrant aims to provide a qualitative analysis into a market and its direction, maturity and participants.^[1]

Their analyses are conducted for several specific technology industries and are updated every 1–2 years.

Rating

Gartner rates vendors upon two criteria: completeness of vision^[1] and ability to execute.^[1] Using a methodology which Gartner does not disclose, these component scores lead to a vendor position in one of four quadrants:

• Leaders are said to score higher on both criteria: the ability to execute and completeness of vision. These are said to be typically larger, mature businesses.
• Challengers are said to score higher on the ability to execute and lower on the completeness of vision. Typically larger, settled businesses with what Gartner claims to be minimal future plans for that industry.
• Visionaries are said to score lower on the ability to execute and higher on the completeness of vision. Typically smaller companies.
• Niche players are said to score lower on both criteria: the ability to execute and completeness of vision. Typically new additions to the Magic Quadrant.

Criticism

It has been pointed out that the criteria for the Magic Quadrant cater more towards investors and large vendors than towards buyers.^[2]

Much of the criticism is focused on the lack of disclosure of the money received from the vendors it rates, raising conflict of interest issues. Also a source of criticism is the lack of disclosure on the vendor's component scores and the lack of transparency in Gartner's methodology used to derive the vendor's position on the MQ map.

There's also a hidden tax on vendors, favoring those with well staffed analyst relations teams: each of those 'landscape reports' can take up to 150–200 hours for each vendor,^[3] putting MQ's out of reach for those without dedicated AR resources.

The Magic Quadrant, and analysts in general, also skew the market: according to research conducted by a Scottish lecturer,^[4] by applying their methodologies to describe a market, they change that marketplace to fit their tools.

Another criticism is that open source vendors are not considered sufficiently by analysts like Gartner, as has been published in an unusual online discussion between a VP from Talend and a German Research VP from Gartner.^[5]

Gartner was the target of a federal lawsuit (filed May 29, 2009) from software vendor, ZL Technologies, challenging the “legitimacy” of Gartner’s Magic Quadrant rating system.^[6] Gartner filed a motion to dismiss by claiming First Amendment protection since it contends that its MQ reports contain "pure opinion," which legally means opinions which are not based on fact.^[7] The court threw out the ZL case because it lacked a specific complaint.^[8] That decision was upheld on appeal.^[9]

In 2012 Michael Rasmussen, a long time Forrester analyst published a "rant"^[10] regarding the methods and outcomes of Gartner and Forrester analysis. This critique has received many online responses (many in the consulting and software industry who remain anonymous) validating Mr. Rasmussen's conclusions and experiences, often citing the fundamental, and arguably obvious, conflict of interest.

Analyzed markets

Analyzed markets include:^[11]

See also

• Hype cycle
• Product-Market Growth Matrix
• Allegro Development Corporation

References

External links

• IIAR blog Series of MQ-related post from the Institute of Industry Analyst Relations
• The Register Article showing blind spots and alternate presentations
• E-Commerce Times Problems with Magic Quadrant
• Demystifying the Magic Quadrant Review of oddities in MQ for ECM
• Federal Computer Week IG criticizes over-reliance of Magic Quadrant for US Government contract
• Downfall of AR and the Gartner Magic Quadrant Technobabble 2.0 reuses well known Downfall meme to create parody of Gartner's Magic Quadrant from an analyst relations perspective