Type "Magic Quadrant" into Google, and you're sure to find countless press releases from vendors who want to share their coveted position with the world. Whether challenger, visionary, or leader, everyone wants to be associated with the Magic Quadrant, no matter what it takes.
However, sometimes it might be worth asking with the data we get from Gartner is really infallible. After all, the group has contradicted itself multiple times in the past and appears to change its criteria for entry almost at random. Can we really trust Gartner to direct our business decisions?
What is the Magic Quadrant?
The Magic Quadrant is a term that goes back to the 1980s, where it was intended to describe a quick overview of a market segment. Now, there are over 150 distinct research reports that each cover a wide range of different technologies. These reports take the form of a two-dimensional look into companies, with "Ability to execute" on one side, and "Completeness of vision" on the other.
Entries are assessed with extensive data-gathering practices, in which vendors respond to a highly in-depth document and fill out lengthy surveys. This research then informs the opinion of analysts, who chart vendors depending on their performance, and place them as a "Niche", "Visionary", "Challenger" or "Leader".
The Magic Quadrant Controversy
It's clear that the Magic Quadrant has seen significant controversy over the years. Back in 2009, ZL Technology questioned how legitimate the rating system was, and alleged that Gartner was developing an unfair competition - though the case was ultimately dismissed. In 2014, Netscout leveraged a suit against Gartner in a similar case, that has yet to be decided.
It's hard to know whether we can trust an organisation who are aggressively focused on nurturing their enterprise clients. After all, these are the people that pay Gartner the most when it comes to consultancy, event, and research fees.
