B2B intent data providers
Asked as “B2B intent data provider”, and as “B2B buyer intent data vendor”, on behalf of a mid-market B2B software company. 56 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, six models each.
Standing · first-choice share
27Apollo.io27Bombora12Dealfront34others
27% of first choices, contested.
Since September 2026↗new leaderNew leader since September 2026: Apollo.io (29%) replaces Bombora (35% then, 25% now), 4 points clear, inside the 12-point floor.Apollo.io leads at 29%, replacing Bombora, which led at 35% and stands at 25% now: 4 points clear, inside the floor, so the swap reads as unsettled.
The standing
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, over all six models, for a mid-market B2B software company. Ordered by share.
ProductFirst-choice shareNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
01
Apollo.io27%6%36accepted challenger▲+4Since September 2026: 25% → 29%, +4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.25% → 29%
Apollo.io27%6%36accepted challenger▲+4Since September 2026: 25% → 29%, +4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.25% → 29%02
Bombora27%27%66criticized challenger▼−10Since September 2026: 35% → 25%, −10 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.35% → 25%
Bombora27%27%66criticized challenger▼−10Since September 2026: 35% → 25%, −10 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.35% → 25%03
Dealfront12%0%37accepted challenger▲+11Since September 2026: 2% → 12%, +11 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 12%
Dealfront12%0%37accepted challenger▲+11Since September 2026: 2% → 12%, +11 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 12%04
Factors.ai7%0%13accepted challenger▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 4%
Factors.ai7%0%13accepted challenger▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 4%05
ZoomInfo7%36%50criticized challenger▲+4Since September 2026: 4% → 8%, +4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.4% → 8%
ZoomInfo7%36%50criticized challenger▲+4Since September 2026: 4% → 8%, +4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.4% → 8%06
RB2B5%0%14accepted challenger▲+2Since September 2026: 2% → 4%, +2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 4%
RB2B5%0%14accepted challenger▲+2Since September 2026: 2% → 4%, +2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 4%07
6sense5%41%64criticized challenger▲+6Since September 2026: 0% → 6%, +6 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 6%
6sense5%41%64criticized challenger▲+6Since September 2026: 0% → 6%, +6 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 6%08
G2 Buyer Intent2%11%44accepted challenger▼−11Since September 2026: 13% → 2%, −11 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.13% → 2%
G2 Buyer Intent2%11%44accepted challenger▼−11Since September 2026: 13% → 2%, −11 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.13% → 2%09
Lusha2%8%12accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 2%
Lusha2%8%12accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 2%Show the four products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
13
Demandbase0%35%49criticized challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
Demandbase0%35%49criticized challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%12
TrustRadius0%14%21accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
TrustRadius0%14%21accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%10
Cognism0%9%22accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%
Cognism0%9%22accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%11
TechTarget Priority Engine0%6%18accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
TechTarget Priority Engine0%6%18accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%The floor is 12 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. How the floor is measured
Bars are the share of first choices, 0 to 100Every product with at least 10 labels here. Every product name links to its product page.
All fifteen head-to-head pages: the top six products, each against each
Recommended versus criticized
Every product with at least 10 labels here, on both axes. The 30% line names a quadrant, not the verdict above: that one needs more than 40%.
Criticized challengerCriticized default
Negative label rate →
01020304050607080910111213Accepted challengerEndorsed leader
0%First-choice share → · lines at 30% share and 25% negative40%
Key
01Apollo.io27%
Apollo.io27%02Bombora27%
Bombora27%03Dealfront12%
Dealfront12%04Factors.ai7%
Factors.ai7%05ZoomInfo7%
ZoomInfo7%06RB2B5%
RB2B5%076sense5%
6sense5%08G2 Buyer Intent2%
G2 Buyer Intent2%09Lusha2%
Lusha2%10Cognism0%
Cognism0%11TechTarget Priority Engine0%
TechTarget Priority Engine0%12TrustRadius0%
TrustRadius0%13Demandbase0%
Demandbase0%What they warned about
A high negative share on a product with few labels is a warning. A low share on a product with many labels is salience, not sentiment.
6sense41%
26 of 64 labels negative · 11 of 6 models · 5 hard negative
“Just avoid 6sense unless you're at the top of the mid-market range with dedicated RevOps support.” DeepSeek V4 Flash, direct prompt
Bombora27%
18 of 66 labels negative · 10 of 6 models · 3 hard negative
“Bombora ($25K+/year) and 6sense ($60K+/year) are enterprise-level and not suitable for limited budgets” MiniMax M2.5, budget prompt
ZoomInfo36%
18 of 50 labels negative · 10 of 6 models · 3 hard negative
“**Verdict:** Avoid if you need reliable intent signals for SDR outreach. The false positive rate will burn your reps' time and trust.” DeepSeek V4 Flash, negative prompt
Demandbase35%
17 of 49 labels negative · 9 of 6 models · 3 hard negative
“**Avoid** 6sense/Demandbase unless you have the budget ($50K+) and internal resources” Kimi K2, direct prompt
What they cite
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list: fourteen of the six in this edition.
Sites the answers cite
75 of 84 answers in this category came back with a source list, from 14 of 6 models: citations where the model returns them, or the search results it consulted. 1065 links across 206 sites, every framing counted. Ranked by the number of answers carrying the site or page. None of the 36 answers across every segment cited this index's own page for the category.
vendor site · Demandbase57 answers · 87 citations · 14 models
vendor site · RB2B36 answers · 42 citations · 11 models
vendor site · Percepture31 answers · 31 citations · 11 models
vendor site · ZoomInfo30 answers · 56 citations · 10 models
26 answers · 28 citations · 8 models
vendor site · Artisan21 answers · 21 citations · 9 models
vendor site · ZenABM21 answers · 21 citations · 9 models
vendor site · Cognism18 answers · 21 citations · 9 models
vendor site · HG Insights18 answers · 19 citations · 9 models
vendor site · Warmly18 answers · 19 citations · 9 models
vendor site · Salesmotion18 answers · 18 citations · 11 models
vendor site · Prospeo17 answers · 24 citations · 7 models
Pages the answers cite
The ten pages named in the most answers, by full address. A page here is one the models returned with a recommendation, not one the index endorses.
51 answers · 13 models
35 answers · 11 models
31 answers · 11 models
21 answers · 9 models
21 answers · 9 models
18 answers · 8 models
17 answers · 8 models
17 answers · 10 models
16 answers · 9 models
15 answers · 8 models
Search against answers
Each company's standing in the answers beside its site's footprint in Google search, one row a site: the products the models named on it with their shares, and the share they add up to; monthly searches on Google, and DataForSEO's estimate of AI search demand (modeled from search signals, directional, not a count of queries to any assistant), for the most-searched of the company's and its products' names (the name is in each row's hover text); estimated monthly organic visits to the site; and its best position in Google's top ten for “b2b intent data provider”, “best b2b intent data provider”. US estimates from DataForSEO and Google's Ads Transparency Center. A small company's site, or a mid-sized company's site for its flagship, is marked company; a product on a large parent's site (Google, Microsoft) has no site figures. A column with no figures for this category is left out, and an empty cell means none were seen, not none exist. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
| Company and products | Share | Own site cited | Name searches, Google | AI search demand, est. | Organic visits | Paid search a month, est. | Google ads, last 30 days | Best Google position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apollo.io apollo.io | 27% | 1000 | 33,100 | 396 | 111,608 | 94 | ||
| Bombora bombora.com | 27% | 227 | 3,600 | 82 | 17,600 | 4 | 1 | |
| Dealfront leadfeeder.com | 12% | 164 | 590 | 9 | 18,447 | 3 | ||
| Factors.ai factors.ai | 7% | 91 | 590 | 1 | 8,319 | 31 | 8 | |
| ZoomInfo zoominfo.com | 7% | 846 | 135,000 | 1,810 | 6,376,738 | $1,140 | 120 | 2 |
| RB2B rb2b.com | 5% | 95 | 4,400 | 43 | 5,372 | 8 | ||
| 6sense 6sense.com | 5% | 684 | 49,500 | 316 | 108,788 | $1,209 | 120 | 3 |
| Saleshandy saleshandy.com | 4% | 42 | 2,400 | 20 | 193,553 | 2 | ||
| G2 Buyer Intent g2.com | 2% | 163 | 90 | 1 | 2,221,182 | 109 | 7 | |
| Lusha lusha.com | 2% | 322 | 12,100 | 893 | 52,570 | $11 | 57 |
Google's top ten for the two searches hold 12 sites; 3 of them are among the sites the models cited here (cognism.com, demandbase.com, pipeline.zoominfo.com). The first result for “b2b intent data provider” is bombora.com.
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.ShowHide
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.
ShowHideModelDirect“What is the best B2B intent data provider for a mid-market B2B company?”Paraphrase“Which B2B buyer intent data vendor would you recommend to a mid-sized B2B company?”Comparative“What are the top B2B intent data providers and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best B2B intent data provider for a company with a limited budget?”Scale-constrained“We are a 500 person company evaluating a B2B intent data provider. What should we look at?”Negative“Which B2B intent data providers should I avoid or be cautious about?”
Claude Opus 5no first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Claude Opus 4.8no first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
GPT-6 Astrano first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
GPT-5.6 Solno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Gemini 3.1 Prono first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Perplexity Sonar Prono first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Bold is the first choiceAlternatives are counted; the count opens them.What the answer argued against
The record
One row per call: the version string exactly as returned, whether the model searched, sources cited, and latency. Full answer text is in the free responses file. Download the record
Zero rows: every prompt, every model, every answer.
| Prompt | Model | Version string | Time (UTC) | Searched | Sources | Latency |
|---|
Noise floor in this category
Flips between the edition run and its calibration repeat. Six prompts per model is a small sample; the index-wide floor is the number to trust.
ShowHide
Normalization in this category
Every judgment call made between the raw labels and the numbers above, listed so it is visible and reversible.
ShowHide
Category-scoped readings
None. Every name in this category resolved on its own.
Unresolved, counted raw
Breeze Prospecting Agent
Buyerfeeds
Customertimes
G2 Signal
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.