AI Indexes
GTM AI Index
Index › Sales › Intent data › Apollo.io vs Dealfront
B2B intent data providers · October 2026 Edition

Apollo.io vs Dealfront

Zero of fourteen models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; three named Dealfront. Apollo.io was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Dealfront by fourteen and Apollo.io carries 36 labels and Dealfront 37, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Apollo.io

accepted challenger

San Francisco, United States, founded 2015. Named in twenty-six categories this edition.

Dealfront

accepted challenger

Named in ten categories this edition.

First-choice share27%12%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate6%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#3A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels3637A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Apollo.io reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Bombora was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Apollo.io vs Bombora · Apollo.io vs Factors.ai · Apollo.io vs ZoomInfo

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 B2B intent data providers page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsDealfront
Direct03
Paraphrase41
Comparative001 against Apollo.io
Budget-constrained113
Scale-constrained00
Negative001 against Apollo.io
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Apollo.io and Dealfront stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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 Dealfront first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apollo.io on the left and Dealfront on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Apollo.io and Dealfront stood in it.

Dealfront first, Apollo.io not the choice

3 of 14 modelsApollo.io was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Mistral SmallDealfront, Factors.ai alternatives: 6sense, Lusha
Kimi K2Dealfront, ZoomInfo alternatives: Bombora, G2 Buyer Intent
Muse Glimmer 30BDealfront, Factors.ai alternatives: Warmly

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.
Claude Haiku 4.5Bombora, G2 Buyer Intent alternatives: Apollo Intent, Dealfront, Factors.ai, Intentsify
Perplexity Sonar6sense alternatives: Apollo.io, Dealfront, Demandbase
GLM 4.7 FlashXFactors.ai alternatives: Bombora, Dealfront, G2 Buyer Intent
MiniMax M2.56sense alternatives: Bombora, Dealfront, Demandbase, G2 Buyer Intent, Prospeo, TrustRadius, ZoomInfo Streaming Intent

Neither was named

7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniBombora alternatives: 6sense, G2 Buyer Intent
Gemini 3.5 FlashZoomInfo alternatives: Bombora, Cognism, Factors.ai, RB2B
Grok 4.20Bombora alternatives: AdRoll ABM, G2 Buyer Intent, Intentsify, Warmly
DeepSeek V4 FlashBombora alternatives: G2 Buyer Intent, Intentsify, ZoomInfo
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashBombora alternatives: 6sense, Datanyze, Demandbase, ZoomInfo
GPT-6 LunaBombora alternatives: 6sense, G2 Buyer Intent

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

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Apollo.io leads by sixty points.
Apollo.io65%#1 of 14
Dealfront5%#2 of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Apollo.io leads by fourteen points.
Apollo.io27%#1 of 13
Dealfront12%#3 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Apollo.io leads by two points.
Apollo.io2%#7 of 9
Dealfront0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What 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.

“Apollo.io - Best All-in-One for Budget Teams ... probably the most accessible entry point for teams that want intent data without enterprise pricing” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Dealfront

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.

“For a mid-sized B2B company, Dealfront offers the best balance of intent visibility, mid-market focus, and affordability.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“combine Apollo.io (to find the right accounts) with Leadfeeder (to verify interest)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared

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.