Analyst rankings are a useful starting point. They make a poor finishing line.
The appeal is obvious. Choosing infrastructure is hard, the options are many, and a respected third party has already done the comparison and drawn a nice picture. Picking from the top corner feels defensible. If it goes wrong, the chart shares the blame.
The catch is that a ranking measures a vendor against a general market, not against your situation. It can't see your existing estate, your team's actual skills, your regulatory constraints, your budget shape, or the fact that the leader's strongest feature is the one thing you'll never use. The product that wins the category in the abstract can be a poor fit for the specific problem in front of you, and the chart has no way of knowing that.
The better use is as a longlist, not a verdict. Let it tell you who's worth a look, then do the work the chart can't: test against your own requirements, talk to people running it at your scale, and weigh the fit rather than the position.
The leader on the page is the leader for the average buyer. You are not the average buyer, which is rather the point of evaluating at all.