Apollo.io vs G2 Buyer Intent
Two of twelve models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; two named G2 Buyer Intent. Apollo.io was named by eleven of the twelve models and G2 Buyer Intent by twelve and Apollo.io carries 27 labels and G2 Buyer Intent 43, so the shares are not directly comparable.
San Francisco, United States, founded 2015. Named in twenty categories this edition.
By G2, Chicago, United States, founded 2012. Named in three categories 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 B2B intent data providers page.
By framing
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of twelve modelsG2 Buyer Intent
The direct prompt
Apollo.io first, G2 Buyer Intent an alternative
2 of 12 modelsG2 Buyer Intent was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.G2 Buyer Intent first, Apollo.io not the choice
2 of 12 modelsApollo.io was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
6 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
2 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
Apollo.io56%#1 of 14G2 Buyer Intent6%#3 of 14Apollo.io25%#2 of 14G2 Buyer Intent13%#3 of 14Apollo.io2%#– of 9G2 Buyer Intent0%#7 of 9What the models said about Apollo.io
No label in this category carried a quote.
What the models said about G2 Buyer Intent
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“The data is expensive (often $25,000 to $80,000/year depending on your categories) and volume is notoriously low” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Pure Signal Accuracy (SaaS) | G2 Buyer Intent | Highest fidelity for software buyers actively comparing products.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Start with first-party/review-site signals (e.g., G2/TrustRadius for SaaS: $10K\u2013$50K, high-intent)” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · first choice
“Go with G2 if you are in B2B SaaS and want to intercept prospects actively comparing software.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Comparisons are drawn for the top three products in each category. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.