GTM AI Index
Index › Sales › Intent data › Dealfront vs Cognism
B2B intent data providers · September 2026 Edition

Dealfront vs Cognism

Zero of twelve models named Dealfront first on the direct prompt; zero named Cognism. Dealfront was named by eleven of the twelve models and Cognism by eleven and Dealfront carries 37 labels and Cognism 24, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Dealfront

accepted challenger

Named in eight categories this edition.

Cognism

accepted challenger

Named in eight categories this edition.

First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels3724A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Dealfront 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 Dealfront · Bombora vs Cognism · Apollo.io vs Dealfront

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.
DealfrontFirst choices, of twelve modelsCognism
Direct00
Paraphrase01
Comparative00
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained10
Negative00
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 Dealfront and Cognism stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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
Dealfront Cognism first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Dealfront on the left and Cognism on the right.

The direct prompt

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

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.
Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice alternatives: Cognism, Dealfront, Demandbase, Intentsify
Perplexity SonarBombora alternatives: 6sense, Dealfront, G2 Buyer Intent
Grok 4.1 FastBombora alternatives: AdRoll ABM, Dealfront, G2 Buyer Intent, ZoomInfo
Mistral SmallMarketBetter alternatives: Apollo.io, Dealfront, Factors.ai
Llama 4 MaverickBombora, Intentsify alternatives: Abmatic AI, Cognism, Dealfront
GLM 4.7 FlashXApollo.io alternatives: Dealfront, G2 Buyer Intent, RB2B

Neither was named

6 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
Gemini 3.5 FlashApollo.io, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence alternatives: Bombora, G2 Buyer Intent, RB2B, Warmly
DeepSeek V4 FlashBombora, G2 Buyer Intent alternatives: Intentsify, ZoomInfo
Qwen 3.7 FlashBombora alternatives: AdRoll ABM, Factors.ai, G2 Buyer Intent, Intentsify, Warmly
Kimi K2Bombora, ZoomInfo alternatives: AdRoll ABM, Demandbase, G2 Buyer Intent
MiniMax M2.5Bombora, G2 Buyer Intent alternatives: Apollo Intent, Factors.ai, Intentsify

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
Dealfront leads by thirteen points.
Dealfront13%#2 of 14
Cognism0%#11 of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Dealfront2%#6 of 14
Cognism2%#7 of 14
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Dealfront0%#– of 9
Cognism0%#9 of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Dealfront

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

“favor scalable mid-market fits like Bombora or Dealfront” Grok 4.1 Fast · scale prompt · first choice
“Best for SMBs and mid-market teams with established website traffic wanting affordable visitor identification.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · alternative
“If you need a simpler solution focused just on website visitor identification, Dealfront is excellent.” Mistral Small · direct prompt · alternative

What the models said about Cognism

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

“Go with ZoomInfo (US-focused) or Cognism (EMEA-focused) if your SDRs need immediate contact details” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
Bombora vs DealfrontBombora vs CognismApollo.io vs DealfrontApollo.io vs CognismG2 Buyer Intent vs DealfrontG2 Buyer Intent vs CognismIntentsify vs DealfrontIntentsify vs CognismZoomInfo vs DealfrontZoomInfo vs CognismDealfront vs RB2BCognism 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.