B2B intent data providers · September 2026 Edition
Apollo.io vs Intentsify
Two of twelve models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; one named Intentsify. Apollo.io was named by eleven of the twelve models and Intentsify by nine and Apollo.io carries 27 labels and Intentsify 19, so the shares are not directly comparable.
San Francisco, United States, founded 2015. Named in twenty categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share25%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate7%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#4A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels2719A 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.G2 Buyer Intent was named alongside these two in nine of the twelve direct answers. Bombora vs Apollo.io · Bombora vs Intentsify · Apollo.io vs G2 Buyer Intent
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
How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of twelve modelsIntentsify
Direct211 against Intentsify
Paraphrase11
Comparative00
Budget-constrained100
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Apollo.io
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.
Every model, every framing
The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Apollo.io and Intentsify stood in it.
| 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 | | | | |
Apollo.io Intentsify first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apollo.io on the left and Intentsify on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Apollo.io and Intentsify stood in it.
Apollo.io first, Intentsify not the choice
2 of 12 modelsIntentsify was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashApollo.io, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence alternatives: Bombora, G2 Buyer Intent, RB2B, Warmly
GLM 4.7 FlashXApollo.io alternatives: Dealfront, G2 Buyer Intent, RB2B
Intentsify first, Apollo.io not the choice
1 of 12 modelsApollo.io was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Llama 4 MaverickBombora, Intentsify alternatives: Abmatic AI, Cognism, Dealfront
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice alternatives: Cognism, Dealfront, Demandbase, Intentsify
Mistral SmallMarketBetter alternatives: Apollo.io, Dealfront, Factors.ai
DeepSeek V4 FlashBombora, G2 Buyer Intent alternatives: Intentsify, ZoomInfo
Qwen 3.7 FlashBombora alternatives: AdRoll ABM, Factors.ai, G2 Buyer Intent, Intentsify, Warmly
MiniMax M2.5Bombora, G2 Buyer Intent alternatives: Apollo Intent, Factors.ai, Intentsify
Neither was named
4 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniBombora alternatives: 6sense, AdRoll ABM, Demandbase, G2 Buyer Intent
Perplexity SonarBombora alternatives: 6sense, Dealfront, G2 Buyer Intent
Grok 4.1 FastBombora alternatives: AdRoll ABM, Dealfront, G2 Buyer Intent, ZoomInfo
Kimi K2Bombora, ZoomInfo alternatives: AdRoll ABM, Demandbase, 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 fifty-six points.
Apollo.io56%#1 of 14Intentsify0%#– of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Apollo.io leads by twenty-one points.
Apollo.io25%#2 of 14Intentsify4%#4 of 14Enterprise
What the models said about Apollo.io
No label in this category carried a quote.
What the models said about Intentsify
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“better suited for enterprise ABM teams with dedicated RevOps resources” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · soft negative
“Bombora or Intentsify - Recommended for mid-market teams with budgets between $25K-$75K/year for third-party intent data.” Llama 4 Maverick · direct prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with Bombora or Intentsify if your primary goal is pure intent data” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“best for mid-market and enterprise teams wanting managed activation services alongside intent intelligence” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · alternative
Also compared
Bombora vs Apollo.ioBombora vs IntentsifyApollo.io vs G2 Buyer IntentApollo.io vs ZoomInfoApollo.io vs DealfrontApollo.io vs CognismApollo.io vs RB2BG2 Buyer Intent vs IntentsifyIntentsify vs ZoomInfoIntentsify vs DealfrontIntentsify vs CognismIntentsify vs RB2BAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full intent data standing
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.