Apollo.io vs Crunchbase
Three of fourteen models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; zero named Crunchbase. Apollo.io was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Crunchbase by eight and Apollo.io carries 20 labels and Crunchbase 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.
San Francisco, United States, founded 2015. Named in twenty-six categories this edition.
San Francisco, United States, founded 2007. Named in two 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 market intelligence platforms page.
By framing
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCrunchbase
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 Crunchbase first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apollo.io on the left and Crunchbase on the right.The direct prompt
Apollo.io first, Crunchbase not the choice
3 of 14 modelsCrunchbase 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
9 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.io31%#1 of 16Crunchbase2%#8 of 16Apollo.io17%#1 of 12Crunchbase3%#5 of 12What the models said about Apollo.io
No label in this category carried a quote.
What the models said about Crunchbase
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“the depth is limited for real go-to-market work... Users note frustration with high costs, limited contact data and restrictive export policies.” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“more accessible for basic funding/company lookups but lacks verified contact data and deep workflow integration” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · soft negative
“Crunchbase Pro is ideal for mid-sized B2B companies” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“choose Crunchbase for company-level research” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
“Crunchbase offers excellent insight into private company funding rounds, leadership changes, and growth signals at a mid-market price point.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase 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.