Your Brand has an AI reputation and it's shaping purchase decisions right now.
Swipe up to continue
9 AI models · 8 answers per model · ranked by score
ordered by brand score: 100 pts for rank 1 → 20 for rank 5 · no mention = 0
Each bar covers the middle half of one model’s answers (Q1–Q3); the line inside it is that model’s median rank for the times it recommended the brand. The badge under a brand says how far apart the models are on it, and “first choice” scores rank 1 far above the rest — a brand can place well overall and still rarely lead an answer.
Swipe left for the full report
Median rank each model gave each brand.
Scroll the table sideways to see every model →
| claude-opus-5 | deepseek-v4.1-flash | gemini-3.7-flash | gpt-5.6-luna | gpt-5.6-sol | gpt-5.6-terra | gpt-6-astra | kimi-k3 | mistral-medium-3.5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HubSpot | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Salesforce | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Zoho | 4.0 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Pipedrive | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Microsoft Dynamics 365 | 5.0 | 5.0 | — | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | — |
| Freshworks | — | 5.0 | 5.0 | — | 5.0 | 5.0 | — | — | — |
| Freshsales | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.0 |
| monday.com | — | — | — | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — |
| Zendesk | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
A dash means that model never named the brand in any of its runs. Deeper blue is better: rank 1 is the brand a model would recommend first.
0 of 9 brands split the panel. Each mark is one model's score for the brand, on the same 0–100 scale as the ranking.
No brands where the models disagree
from here down, the models agreegemini-3.7-flash 0 → gpt-5.6-luna 60 · 2 of 9 never named it
gpt-5.6-luna 20 → claude-opus-5 53
gpt-5.6-luna 40 → mistral-medium-3.5 60
claude-opus-5 0 → gemini-3.7-flash 18 · 5 of 9 never named it
gpt-5.6-luna 88 → mistral-medium-3.5 100
claude-opus-5 80 → gpt-5.6-luna 93
A hollow mark is a model that never named the brand in any of its runs, which scores 0. Agreement is not endorsement — a brand every model ignores equally agrees just as tightly as one they all rank first.
Across → how frequently the panel names the brand at all.
Up ↑ how often the answers that name it put it first.
The horizontal line sits at 20% — the rate a named brand would lead at if the models were picking one of its 5 slots at random. Above it they are choosing it first on purpose. Both figures average across models, so a thinly sampled model counts the same as a heavily sampled one.
HubSpot leads with a score of 98 of 100, ranked by 9 of 9 models.
Across the nine models this category resolves into a stable pecking order — HubSpot, then Salesforce, then Zoho, then Pipedrive — with the disagreement concentrated at the two ends rather than the middle.
The top of the ranking is where the models are most alike. HubSpot is the clear consensus pick, ranked first by seven of nine, and the only real dissent is gpt-5.6-luna, which parks it at a median rank of 2.
per-model scores 88–100 of 100 · mean 98 across 9 models
That same model is the mirror image on Salesforce: gpt-5.6-luna is alone in leading with it, scoring it 92.5 where six other models sit flat at 80. So the HubSpot-versus-Salesforce question is effectively decided by one model's ordering, not by any broad divide — the two brands trade first and second place almost entirely inside gpt-5.6-luna's answers.
HubSpot ahead on 8 of 9 models
The genuinely wide splits appear lower down. Microsoft Dynamics 365 carries the largest disagreement in the field: gpt-5.6-luna rates it at borda 60 and a median rank of 3, while claude-opus-5, gpt-6-astra and kimi-k3 land it at rank 5, and two models leave it off some runs entirely. The divide is about weighting, not fact — models agree it is enterprise-grade but disagree on how heavily licensing and implementation complexity should count against a general recommendation.
Microsoft Dynamics 365 · 60 points apart on a 0–100 scale
Below Dynamics, the tail is defined by coverage rather than conviction. Freshworks appears for only four models, and its spread is driven almost entirely by gemini-3.7-flash naming it in most runs while three others cite it rarely. Freshsales, monday.com and Zendesk are each the property of a single model — mistral-medium-3.5, gpt-5.6-terra and gemini-3.7-flash respectively — so their low, "agreed" scores mostly reflect shared silence rather than a shared judgment.
The recalled sources point the same way for everyone and do little to explain the splits. G2www.g2.com/categories/crm×116 dominates the entire category, with Capterra and PCMag close behind, and the brand-specific pages track wherever a model went. Because the heaviest-cited sources are common across models, they are unlikely to be what separates gpt-5.6-luna from the rest; that divergence looks like a difference in how the model weighs enterprise capability against ease of adoption — a hypothesis the reasonings support but the source data does not confirm.
54 sources across 992 references, grouped by site from 231 recalled names. The top 5 carry 62% of them.
g2.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
also named HubSpot CRM
HubSpot is the panel's clearest consensus pick, carrying a Borda score of 97.78 and ranked by all 9 of 9 models. The agreement is tight: per-model scores span 87.5 to 100 with a standard deviation of 3.99, which the report labels "models agree." Seven of the nine models placed it at a median rank of 1, and only gpt-5.6-luna diverges meaningfully, settling at a median rank of 2 and giving it the lowest score in the set.
per-model scores 88–100 of 100 · mean 98 across 9 models
The reasoning behind the ranking is remarkably uniform. Models repeatedly cite the same three attributes — an approachable, intuitive interface, a genuinely useful free tier, and integrated marketing, sales, and service tools — while consistently attaching the same caveat that costs rise steeply as contacts, seats, and advanced features are added. Several models frame it explicitly as the safe default recommendation when requirements are unknown. The recalled sources cluster under user-review and directory themes, most prominently G2www.g2.com/categories/crm×116 and the vendor's own HubSpot CRMwww.hubspot.com/products/crm×19, supplemented by Capterra, PCMag, and Gartner references.
“HubSpot offers the best balance of usability, a genuinely useful free tier, and a unified suite spanning marketing, sales and service, which makes it the safest general recommendation for small and mid-sized teams.”
“HubSpot is the strongest general recommendation because it combines an approachable interface, a useful free tier, and well-integrated sales, marketing, and service tools.”
Consistently frames HubSpot as the safest general recommendation for small and mid-sized teams, citing its usability, useful free tier, unified marketing/sales/service suite, and best-in-class onboarding, while noting costs escalate as contacts and add-ons grow.
Recommends HubSpot first for most small and mid-sized teams because of its intuitive interface, useful free tier, fast setup, and integrated sales/marketing/service tools, with the caveat that costs and customization limits appear as usage scales.
Emphasizes HubSpot's exceptionally intuitive interface, robust free tier, and seamless all-in-one ecosystem across marketing, sales, and service, presenting it as the best-balanced, scalable choice despite expensive enterprise tiers.
Repeatedly calls HubSpot the strongest general recommendation for its approachable interface, useful free tier, and integrated marketing/sales/service ecosystem, tempered by substantially rising costs as features and contacts grow.
Describes HubSpot as the strongest all-around recommendation for small and midsize teams due to its approachable CRM, useful free tier, and natural integration with marketing and service workflows, with the trade-off of rising costs from added hubs, seats, and automation.
Treats HubSpot as its default recommendation when company size and requirements are unknown, citing its approachable CRM connected to sales, marketing, and service tools and easy start, while warning costs rise substantially with advanced features and expanded usage.
Recommends HubSpot as the best overall balance of usability and capability for most businesses, stressing its intuitive interface, genuinely useful free tier, fast adoption, and integrated hubs, while noting costs climb steeply at higher tiers.
Consistently describes HubSpot as a highly intuitive, user-friendly CRM with a robust free tier and seamless integration of marketing, sales, and service tools, ideal for small to mid-sized and scaling businesses.
Positions HubSpot as an approachable top pick for small and midsize businesses, highlighting its free tier and unified marketing, sales, service, and content tools, while noting costs rise as advanced features and contacts are added.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
capterra.com
g2.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
Salesforce scores strongly across the panel, drawing a Borda of 82.22 of 100 and recognition from all 9 of the 9 models. The spread is narrow — per-model borda runs from 80 to 92.5 with a standard deviation of 3.99, which the report labels as agreement. That consensus is thematic as well as numerical: nearly every model frames Salesforce as the enterprise standard, praised for unmatched customization, its AppExchange ecosystem, and depth of automation and reporting, while placing it just behind HubSpot for general buyers because of implementation complexity, administrative overhead, and total cost of ownership. The recalled evidence sits under those themes consistently, with G2×1 appearing across most models, reinforced by Gartner's Magic Quadrant citations and Salesforce's own product pages.
per-model scores 80–93 of 100 · mean 82 across 9 models
The main point of divergence is placement at the top rather than presence: gpt-5.6-luna ranks it first in 5 of 8 runs for a borda of 92.5, whereas claude-opus-5, gemini-3.7-flash, gpt-5.6-sol, gpt-5.6-terra, gpt-6-astra, and mistral-medium-3.5 each land at 80, never ranking it first. The first-choice score of 55.56 of 100 reflects that split between models that lead with Salesforce and those that reserve first place for a more turnkey option.
“Salesforce is the strongest overall recommendation for organizations that need a highly capable, scalable CRM with extensive customization, automation, analytics, and integrations.”
“It ranks lower than HubSpot here only because of higher cost, implementation complexity and admin overhead for smaller teams.”
Frames Salesforce as the strongest overall choice for scalable, highly customizable CRM with broad automation, analytics, and integrations. Its breadth and ecosystem suit larger organizations, but implementation complexity and cost can be significant for smaller teams.
Consistently frames Salesforce as the market leader with unmatched customization, AppExchange ecosystem, and enterprise-grade reporting, ideal for large or complex organizations. It ranks below HubSpot mainly due to cost, implementation complexity, and admin overhead that make it overkill for smaller teams.
Repeatedly describes Salesforce as the most powerful and customizable CRM with an unmatched ecosystem for complex enterprise sales. It ranks it lower because of the steep learning curve, high cost, and the need for dedicated admins, making it less turnkey for smaller teams.
Consistently calls Salesforce the industry standard/benchmark for enterprise customization, analytics, and AppExchange integrations. It places it just behind HubSpot due to steep learning curve, complex setup, administrative overhead, and high total cost of ownership.
Uniformly emphasizes Salesforce's exceptional customization, automation, reporting, and ecosystem for complex or enterprise deployments. It ranks below HubSpot for general audiences because implementation, administration, and total cost can be substantial.
Consistently positions Salesforce as excellent for larger or complex organizations needing deep customization, integrations, governance, and a broad partner ecosystem. Its power comes with higher implementation effort, administration, and total cost than simpler options.
Repeatedly recommends Salesforce for organizations needing extensive customization, sophisticated sales workflows, and a large integration ecosystem. It ranks it below HubSpot for general buyers because implementation, administration, and total cost can be excessive for simpler needs.
Consistently describes Salesforce as the industry standard and most powerful, customizable CRM with an unmatched AppExchange ecosystem. It ranks it second because licensing cost, admin overhead, and implementation complexity make it overkill for many smaller teams.
Uniformly frames Salesforce as the enterprise-level industry leader with unparalleled customization, scalability, and ecosystem. It notes a steeper learning curve and complexity that can make it overkill for smaller businesses.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
also named Zoho CRM
Zoho occupies a firmly mid-tier position in this study, ranked by all 9 of the 9 models and earning a Borda score of
Stat unavailablewith no model placing it first. The spread of per-model scores is narrow — from 40 to 60, a standard deviation of 6.64 — which the report labels as agreement. That consensus rests on a shared reading: models consistently frame Zoho as the strongest value-for-money option, feature-rich and tightly bound to the wider Zoho suite, well-suited to budget-conscious SMBs, while noting an interface and configuration experience that feels less polished than higher-ranked alternatives. The clustering of median ranks around 3 and 4 reflects that this trade-off caps its standing rather than sinking it.
per-model scores 40–60 of 100 · mean 54 across 9 models
The recalled sources sit largely under review-aggregator and vendor themes, with G2×1 and Capterra×4 recurring across nearly every model alongside Zoho's own pages, and PCMag×4 supporting the value-and-features framing. The value case and the polish caveat surface together throughout the reasonings.
“Zoho CRM delivers the strongest feature-per-dollar value, with automation, analytics and a huge suite of integrated business apps at a fraction of competitors' prices.”
“Zoho provides broad CRM functionality and strong value, especially for small and midsize businesses that may also use its wider business-software suite.”
Emphasizes an exceptionally feature-rich, cost-effective CRM with native integration into the broader Zoho ecosystem, offset by an interface that can feel cluttered, fragmented, or disjointed.
Consistently characterizes Zoho as strong value with broad functionality tied to its wider business-software suite for SMBs, while noting the interface and configuration feel less polished than top-ranked options.
Highlights Zoho's strong value and broad CRM capability, especially for cost-conscious teams using its wider suite, while noting the interface and setup feel less polished than leading alternatives.
Ranks Zoho third as an affordable, value-oriented choice for budget-conscious SMBs with a broad business-software ecosystem, noting that configuring across its many options and applications takes more effort than simpler alternatives.
Consistently frames Zoho as the best value with a broad feature set (AI, automation, multichannel) at a fraction of leaders' prices, ranked mid-pack because its interface, polish, and ecosystem trail HubSpot and Salesforce.
Repeatedly describes Zoho as a cost-effective, feature-rich option with automation and AI, well-suited to small businesses and startups, though possibly lacking advanced features for larger enterprises.
Repeatedly positions Zoho as excellent value with a broad, customizable feature set for budget-conscious SMBs, while noting its interface can feel less polished or cluttered and the wider ecosystem sprawling.
Consistently frames Zoho as the best feature-per-dollar value, integrated with the broad Zoho One suite and suited to budget-conscious SMBs and international teams, while noting a less polished UI and inconsistent support relative to HubSpot and Salesforce.
Describes Zoho as a broad, cost-effective, value-oriented CRM with a large application ecosystem, ranked below leaders because its interface and administration experience feel less polished or streamlined.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
capterra.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
Pipedrive scores a Borda average of 38.61 of 100 and is ranked by all 9 of the 9 models, a consistent mid-table placement rather than a top pick — none of the 9 models ranked it first. With per-model borda spanning 20 to 52.5 and a standard deviation of 8.51, the report labels this "broad agreement," and the spread reflects fine gradations rather than genuine dispute: claude-opus-5 places it highest at 52.5, while gpt-5.6-luna anchors the bottom at 20.
per-model scores 20–53 of 100 · mean 39 across 9 models
The models converge on a single reading, with the theme steady across all nine: Pipedrive is a sales-first, visually-driven pipeline CRM that small teams adopt quickly with low overhead, held back only by comparatively thin marketing, service, reporting, and enterprise capabilities. That shared framing — strong at its narrow purpose, weaker as an all-in-one platform — explains why it clusters at rank 4 for most models while gpt-6-astra notes it "could be my first choice for a small, sales-focused team." The recalled evidence sits mainly on review aggregators and the vendor's own pages, with G2×1 and Capterra×4 recurring most heavily alongside frequent citations of Pipedrive's own site.
“Pipedrive is a sales-first, pipeline-centric CRM that small sales teams can adopt in days, with clear visual deal stages and low pricing.”
“Pipedrive excels in simplicity and ease of use, focusing on sales pipeline management.”
Pipedrive is consistently framed as a sales-first, visual pipeline CRM that small teams adopt quickly with low overhead and affordable pricing, ranked lower because its marketing, service, and reporting capabilities are comparatively thin.
Pipedrive is portrayed as a focused, easy-to-use pipeline CRM ideal for small sales teams, ranked lower because it lacks the broader marketing, service, and customization depth of all-in-one platforms.
Pipedrive is described as purpose-built around visual pipeline management for deal-driven sales teams with minimal onboarding, ranked lower for lacking native marketing and customer support features found in full-suite platforms.
Pipedrive is framed as a strong fit for sales-led teams wanting a clean visual pipeline and quick adoption without enterprise complexity, ranked lower for limited native marketing, service, and cross-functional capabilities.
Pipedrive is portrayed as excellent for sales teams prioritizing pipeline visibility and deal tracking, ranked fourth for general use because it is less comprehensive for marketing and customer-service needs, though it could top a small sales team's list.
Pipedrive is described as a sales-first CRM built around a clean visual pipeline that reps enjoy using, ranked lower because its marketing, service, and reporting features are thin and often rely on add-ons.
Pipedrive is consistently characterized by simplicity and ease of use for sales-focused teams, with the caveat that it offers fewer marketing and service features than competitors like HubSpot or Salesforce.
Pipedrive is consistently described as easy to adopt and effective for visual, sales-focused pipeline management, ranked lower because its marketing, customer-service, and enterprise capabilities are narrower than broader platforms.
Pipedrive is presented as an intuitive, sales-focused CRM strong on visual pipeline and deal management, ranked lower because it is less comprehensive for marketing, service, analytics, and enterprise needs.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
pipedrive.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
also named Microsoft, Microsoft Dynamics, Microsoft Dynamics 365 Sales
Microsoft Dynamics 365 scores modestly across the panel, with a Borda average of 20.56 of 100 and a first-choice score of 15.86, ranked by 7 of the 9 models but placed first by none. The models converge on a shared narrative more than the numbers alone suggest: Dynamics 365 is consistently framed as a capable, enterprise-grade CRM whose natural home is organizations already committed to Microsoft 365, Teams, Azure and the Power Platform, but one that ranks lower as a general recommendation because of complex licensing, partner-led implementation, and a steeper adoption curve. Where the models differ is in how much weight that complexity carries: gpt-5.6-luna places it at a median rank 3 with a borda of 60, while claude-opus-5, gpt-6-astra and kimi-k3 all settle at a median rank 5, several of them explicit that the placement reflects ease of adoption rather than capability.
That gap defines the spread the report labels "broad agreement" despite a standard deviation of 16.78. The evidence behind these judgments leans on vendor and review sources — Microsoft Dynamics 365 Saleswww.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics-365/products/sales×16 recurs across models alongside G2 review pages and Gartner's Magic Quadrant for Sales Force Automation Platforms — supporting a consistent picture of a powerful platform whose value is conditional on ecosystem fit.
per-model scores 0–60 of 100 · mean 21 across 9 models
“It ranks fifth as a default recommendation because configuration and licensing can be complex, though it could rank much higher for a Microsoft-centric enterprise.”
“I rank it last here mainly because it's the least broadly applicable of the five, not because of capability.”
Consistently describes it as a strong, flexible enterprise CRM for companies already invested in Microsoft 365, Teams, Azure and Power Platform, but notes its configuration, licensing, and expertise requirements make it more complex than simpler options.
Repeatedly frames it as a compelling choice for organizations deeply invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, but ranks it lower (fourth or fifth) as a general recommendation due to licensing and implementation complexity, especially for smaller teams.
Consistently frames Dynamics 365 as a powerful enterprise option best suited for organizations already invested in Microsoft 365, Teams, Azure and Power Platform, but ranks it last due to complex licensing, partner-led implementation, and lower ease of adoption—not capability.
Repeatedly positions it as a robust CRM ideal for organizations already invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, while ranking it low generally because of complex, costly licensing and implementation that feels heavier than simpler alternatives.
Consistently presents it as a sensible option for larger organizations invested in Microsoft 365, Teams, Power Platform and Azure, but ranks it lower for general use because implementation and administration are complex and often require specialist or partner support.
Repeatedly ranks it fifth as a general-purpose default due to configuration and licensing complexity, while emphasizing it could rank much higher for Microsoft-centric enterprises where its ecosystem fit is a strong advantage.
Consistently describes it as a powerful, enterprise-grade CRM with deep Microsoft ecosystem integration, but ranks it last because of confusing licensing, high implementation cost, steep learning curve, and limited value outside Microsoft-centric organizations.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
microsoft.com
microsoft.com
no URL recalled
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
where
where
Each one is a single question put to every active AI model, many times over.
See every category with its question and leaders.
Tell us what to ask and how wide to sample it — we run it and send back the report.