We are asked regularly, "Why won't Gartner release the names of information technology vendors or service providers that are Gartner clients?" The questioner's intent is to assess how client status affects favorability of Gartner's research positions. This makes an assumption that we favor clients over non-clients in our positions. This assumption is dead wrong.

Regardless, we can't provide the names of any Gartner clients -- vendors or users. We're contractually bound to treat all client information as confidential, including the client name. This is important to protect the sanctity of the advisory relationship, which is why companies become Gartner clients in the first place.

All Gartner research goes through rigorous peer review and management approval processes that ensure all vendors are being treated equally. Client status doesn't enter into any of these discussions. And frankly, Gartner analysts would be the first ones to raise a stink if something was awry: they value their independence and objectivity that strongly.

Of course, if you believe that a vendor or service provider is getting favorable treatment due to their status as a Gartner client, please bring that issue to the Ombudsman. We will thoroughly investigate and report on any perceived bias.

Submit a Comment | Permalink

Have you ever done an analysis clients vs. non clients on the magic quadrants to disprove this assertion. It is widely believed in the vendor community that you must pay to play with Gartner. Some accurate information supporting your viewpoint that money does not talk would be helpful in countering this.

What puzzels me why gartner cannot follow the model of security analysts. When security analysts discuss a particular fund/stock, they also divulge their positions which might lead to conflict of interest. When a MQ is released, why not add a foot note if there is any consulting revenue or subscription revenue derived from these vendors covered?

--The opinions expressed are solely mine and does not represent my employer.