Contact center quality assurance · October 2026 Edition
EvaluAgent vs Level AI
Six of fourteen models named EvaluAgent first on the direct prompt; one named Level AI. EvaluAgent was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Level AI by nine and EvaluAgent carries 45 labels and Level AI 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in four categories this edition.
First-choice share28%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate4%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#8A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels4512A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, EvaluAgent reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Scorebuddy was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. EvaluAgent vs Scorebuddy · EvaluAgent vs Zendesk QA · EvaluAgent vs Playvox QM
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the contact center quality assurance page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
EvaluAgentFirst choices, of fourteen modelsLevel AI
Direct61
Paraphrase30
Comparative01
Budget-constrained50
Scale-constrained00
Negative102 against EvaluAgent
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where EvaluAgent and Level AI stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | ||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | |||||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
EvaluAgent Level AI first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, EvaluAgent on the left and Level AI on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where EvaluAgent and Level AI stood in it.
EvaluAgent first, Level AI not the choice
6 of 14 modelsLevel AI was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Grok 4.1 FastEvaluAgent, Scorebuddy alternatives: Balto, Talkdesk QM, Zendesk QA
Mistral SmallEvaluAgent, Scorebuddy alternatives: Talkdesk
DeepSeek V4 FlashEvaluAgent alternatives: AmplifAI, Observe.AI, Scorebuddy, Talkdesk, Zendesk QA
Llama 4 MaverickEvaluAgent alternatives: GetApp, Scorebuddy
Kimi K2EvaluAgent alternatives: Playvox, ScorebuddyCX, Zendesk QA
GPT-6 LunaEvaluAgent alternatives: CallMiner Eureka, NICE CXone Quality Management
Level AI first, EvaluAgent not the choice
1 of 14 modelsEvaluAgent was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniLevel AI alternatives: Calabrio ONE, Scorebuddy, Zendesk QA
Neither was the first choice, one was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Scorebuddy alternatives: Convin, EvaluAgent, Gong, Level AI
Gemini 3.5 FlashZendesk QA alternatives: EvaluAgent, Level AI, MaestroQA
Perplexity SonarScorebuddy alternatives: AmplifAI, Balto, EvaluAgent, Level AI
GLM 4.7 FlashXAmplifAI, Balto alternatives: EvaluAgent, Playvox QM, Scorebuddy
MiniMax M2.5Scorebuddy alternatives: EvaluAgent, Voxjar, Zendesk QA
Muse Glimmer 30BObserve.AI, Zendesk QA alternatives: EvaluAgent, Playvox, Scorebuddy
Neither was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Qwen 3.7 FlashCallMiner Eureka alternatives: Five9 Agent Connect, MaestroQA, NICE CXone Quality Management, Playvox
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
EvaluAgent leads by nineteen points.
EvaluAgent19%#1 of 12Level AI0%#– of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
EvaluAgent leads by twenty-six points.
EvaluAgent28%#1 of 13Level AI2%#8 of 13Enterprise
EvaluAgent leads by four points.
EvaluAgent9%#5 of 14Level AI4%#8 of 14What the models said about EvaluAgent
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Users report repeated friction integrating with platforms like Amazon Connect, despite vendor instructions” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“limited dashboard customization for evaluagent” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“For most companies with limited budgets, EvaluAgent at $35 per user offers the best balance of affordability and functionality.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“My default pick: evaluagent—if you already have a contact-center platform and want to add QA without replacing it.” GPT-6 Luna · direct prompt · first choice
“EvaluAgent: A mid-market blended AI + human QA platform with autoQM, conversation intelligence, and scorecard builder.” Llama 4 Maverick · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Level AI
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“my default recommendation is Level AI if you want the most balanced mix of AI-powered QA, omnichannel coverage, and mid-market fit” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
“often ranked #1 for comprehensive QA” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Level AI is recommended for mid-market contact centers consolidating conversation intelligence and QA on one platform” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · alternative
Also compared
EvaluAgent vs ScorebuddyEvaluAgent vs Zendesk QAEvaluAgent vs Playvox QMEvaluAgent vs CloudTalkEvaluAgent vs MaestroQAEvaluAgent vs PlayvoxScorebuddy vs Level AIZendesk QA vs Level AIPlayvox QM vs Level AICloudTalk vs Level AIMaestroQA vs Level AIPlayvox vs Level AIAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full Contact center QA standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.