eSpatial vs Maptive
Zero of twelve models named eSpatial first on the direct prompt; zero named Maptive. eSpatial was named by eleven of the twelve models and Maptive by eleven and eSpatial carries 28 labels and Maptive 21, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve 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 territory and quota planning page.
By framing
eSpatialFirst choices, of twelve modelsMaptive
Across every category in the September 2026 Edition, eSpatial and Maptive were named in the same answer forty-eight times, of the 65 answers naming eSpatial and the 61 naming Maptive. In those answers Maptive took the first choice four times and eSpatial two.
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 | |
eSpatial Maptive first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, eSpatial on the left and Maptive on the right.The direct prompt
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
10 of 12 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
eSpatial2%#5 of 11Maptive2%#6 of 11eSpatial0%#9 of 10Maptive0%#10 of 10What the models said about eSpatial
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Mapping-first tools ... but no quota or capacity planning. Good only if territories are purely geographic.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · soft negative
“Great tools but start at $1,495–$2,400/year, only economical if you need algorithmic territory balancing.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“is likely a step up in cost and complexity” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · soft negative
“🏆 Top Recommendation: eSpatial” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“eSpatial is best for mid-market teams that want algorithmic territory balancing and clear visual mapping” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · alternative
“Look for tools (like eSpatial or Varicent) that use algorithms to automatically assign accounts” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · alternative
What the models said about Maptive
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Mapping-first tools with algorithmic territory balancing at lower cost, but no quota or capacity planning” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · soft negative
“Maptive is best for teams that want every mapping feature included at a flat per-user price” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“"We just need to draw clean maps and visualize coverage" → eSpatial, Maptive, or Salesforce Maps” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
“eSpatial, Maptive | Excellent for algorithmic balancing and deep GIS visualization.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale 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.