Apollo.io vs Demandbase
Zero of fourteen models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; one named Demandbase. Apollo.io was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Demandbase by fourteen and Apollo.io carries 17 labels and Demandbase 69, 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 2006. Named in twenty-four 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 account-based marketing platforms page.
By framing
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsDemandbase
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Apollo.io and Demandbase were named in the same answer 175 times, of the 1056 answers naming Apollo.io and the 692 naming Demandbase. In those answers Demandbase took the first choice seven times and Apollo.io fifty-six.
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 4.20 | | | | | | |
| 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 Demandbase first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apollo.io on the left and Demandbase on the right.The direct prompt
Demandbase first, Apollo.io not the choice
1 of 14 modelsApollo.io was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 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.io19%#3 of 13Demandbase0%#13 of 13Demandbase51%#1 of 8Apollo.io0%#– of 8What the models said about Apollo.io
No label in this category carried a quote.
What the models said about Demandbase
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“the absolute worst thing you can do is sign an annual contract with enterprise-grade giants like 6sense or Demandbase” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Expensive (opaque pricing, often $60K+/year minimum), heavy implementation (3-6 months), and confusing for mid-market teams.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · hard negative
“should avoid 6sense and Demandbase because costs of $15K–$25K/year and complexity rarely pay off” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“Prioritize platforms that balance high-quality intent data with easy-to-use orchestration (e.g., demandbase, Terminus, 6sense, or Rollworks” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“boasts one of the strongest native Demand-Side Platforms (DSP) for B2B advertising... highly regarded for its buying group mapping” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Most comprehensive platform: Combines first-party and third-party data with AI-driven insights into a unified account view” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · first choice
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.