Apollo.io vs Hunter
Eleven of fourteen models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; zero named Hunter. Apollo.io was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Hunter by eleven and Apollo.io carries 72 labels and Hunter 15, so the shares are not directly comparable.
San Francisco, United States, founded 2015. Named in twenty-six categories this edition.
By Hunter.io, United States, founded 2015. Named in seven categories this edition.
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 data enrichment page.
By framing
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsHunter
Every model, every framing
| 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 | | | | | |
Apollo.io Hunter first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apollo.io on the left and Hunter on the right.The direct prompt
Apollo.io first, Hunter not the choice
11 of 14 modelsHunter was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
Apollo.io77%#1 of 10Hunter0%#6 of 10Apollo.io73%#1 of 12Hunter2%#7 of 12What the models said about Apollo.io
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“data accuracy and billing are the top pain points at scale” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative
What the models said about Hunter
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“Hunter.io for the cheapest email-only option” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“Hunter (Best for email-focused teams) - Cheap and reliable for email enrichment specifically” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · alternative
“If you only need email addresses, Hunter.io or Lusha may be the most cost-effective choices.” Mistral Small · budget prompt · alternative
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.