AI Indexes
GTM AI Index
Index › Sales › Intent data › Factors.ai vs RB2B
B2B intent data providers · October 2026 Edition

Factors.ai vs RB2B

Three of fourteen models named Factors.ai first on the direct prompt; zero named RB2B. Factors.ai was named by ten of the fourteen models and RB2B by eight and Factors.ai carries 13 labels and RB2B 14, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Factors.ai

accepted challenger

Named in eleven categories this edition.

RB2B

accepted challenger

Named in five categories this edition.

First-choice share7%5%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#4#6A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels1314A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Factors.ai 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 Factors.ai · Apollo.io vs RB2B · Bombora vs Factors.ai

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.
Factors.aiFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRB2B
Direct30
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained13
Scale-constrained00
Negative00
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 Factors.ai and RB2B 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
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Factors.ai RB2B first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Factors.ai on the left and RB2B on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Factors.ai and RB2B stood in it.

Factors.ai first, RB2B not the choice

3 of 14 modelsRB2B was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Mistral SmallDealfront, Factors.ai alternatives: 6sense, Lusha
GLM 4.7 FlashXFactors.ai alternatives: Bombora, Dealfront, G2 Buyer Intent
Muse Glimmer 30BDealfront, Factors.ai alternatives: Warmly

Neither was the first choice, one was named

2 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
Gemini 3.5 FlashZoomInfo alternatives: Bombora, Cognism, Factors.ai, RB2B

Neither was named

9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniBombora alternatives: 6sense, G2 Buyer Intent
Perplexity Sonar6sense alternatives: Apollo.io, Dealfront, Demandbase
Grok 4.1 FastBombora 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
Kimi K2Dealfront, ZoomInfo alternatives: Bombora, G2 Buyer Intent
MiniMax M2.56sense alternatives: Bombora, Dealfront, Demandbase, G2 Buyer Intent, Prospeo, TrustRadius, ZoomInfo Streaming Intent
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
RB2B leads by two points.
RB2B4%#5 of 14
Factors.ai2%#– of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Factors.ai leads at mid-market.
Factors.ai7%#4 of 13
RB2B5%#6 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Factors.ai0%#– of 9
RB2B0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Factors.ai

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

“If I had to pick one, I'd shortlist Factors.ai Lite: it's listed at $199/month after a trial” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about RB2B

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

“I'd recommend RB2B if you have meaningful website traffic and want person-level identification” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“If you have zero budget but some website traffic: Set up RB2B (for US traffic)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“the practical stack is usually Apollo.io or RB2B for coverage” Muse Glimmer 30B · 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.