Small business▼−9Since September 2026: 94% → 85%, −9 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
85%from 94% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 2 pointsRank 1 of 53, unchanged
26 categories · RankedApollo.io
1,057Judge labels
370First choices
145Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
26Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
87% in Sales intel for small business buyers
Rank 1 of 52 in the mid-market standingendorsed leader
12 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 16% of its 68 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Apollo.io →By buyer segmentStrongest at small business.
Small business1 of 55
87%79 labels
endorsed leader
Mid-market1 of 52
73%68 labels
endorsed leader
Enterprise2 of 45
12%68 labels
criticized challenger
In sales intel · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named Apollo.io for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales intelligence and contact data | Sales | 73% | 1 of 52 | 16% | 68 | endorsed leader | ▼−3Since September 2026: 76% → 73%, −3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Data enrichment | GTM data and infrastructure | 73% | 1 of 50 | 14% | 72 | endorsed leader | ▲+1Since September 2026: 70% → 71%, +1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Sales engagement platforms | Sales | 35% | 1 of 66 | 14% | 66 | endorsed leader | ▲+2Since September 2026: 33% → 35%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| B2B intent data providers | Sales | 27% | 1 of 60 | 6% | 36 | accepted challenger | ▲+4Since September 2026: 25% → 29%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| AI SDR agents | Sales | 24% | 1 of 77 | 0% | 33 | accepted challenger | ▲+8Since September 2026: 20% → 27%, +8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Market intelligence platforms | GTM data and infrastructure | 17% | 1 of 172 | 5% | 20 | accepted challenger | |
| Account-based marketing platforms | Marketing | 11% | 2 of 71 | 0% | 17 | accepted challenger | ▲+9Since September 2026: 4% → 13%, +9 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Identity resolution | GTM data and infrastructure | 6% | 5 of 140 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Hightouch Adaptive Identity Resolution at 12% | ▲+3Since September 2026: 4% → 7%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Audience and consumer insights platforms | Marketing | 4% | 9 of 155 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by SparkToro at 19% | |
| Sales dialers and calling | Sales | 2% | 16 of 75 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by CloudTalk at 22% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Value selling tools | Sales | 2% | 9 of 116 | 0% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by Minoa at 21% | |
| CRM data quality and deduplication | Revenue operations | 0% | 23 of 99 | 29% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by Insycle at 43% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Data management platforms | GTM data and infrastructure | 0% | 30 of 159 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Segment at 37% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Channel partner and local marketing | Partner and channel | 0% | 103 of 124 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Channelscaler at 10% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Lead routing and management | Sales | 0% | 88 of 111 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by LeadAngel at 26% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Field sales tools | Sales | 0% | 20 of 94 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Badger Maps at 38% | |
| Retail, proximity and IoT marketing | Marketing | 0% | 43 of 130 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Foursquare Proximity at 15% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Sales enablement and content | Sales | 0% | 60 of 72 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Sales Hub at 29% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| CRM | Revenue operations | 0% | 47 of 64 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by HubSpot CRM at 59% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Data clean rooms | GTM data and infrastructure | 0% | 32 of 100 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Snowflake Data Clean Rooms at 19% | |
| Digital sales rooms | Sales | 0% | 32 of 73 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Dock at 29% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Email deliverability and testing tools | Marketing | 0% | 100 of 110 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by GlockApps at 34% | |
| Email marketing platforms | Marketing | 0% | 29 of 66 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Marketing Hub at 35% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Email verification | GTM data and infrastructure | 0% | 58 of 65 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by ZeroBounce at 42% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Event lead capture apps | Marketing | 0% | 49 of 70 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Blinq at 23% | |
| Revenue intelligence and forecasting | Sales | 0% | 52 of 76 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Clari Copilot at 28% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Apollo.io held within the floor in all twenty-six categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Sales intel · by segment
Mid-market▼−3Since September 2026: 76% → 73%, −3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
73%from 76% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 1 of 50, unchanged
Enterprise▲+10Since September 2026: 4% → 14%, +10 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
14%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 1 pointRank 4 → 2 of 41
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market intelligence | 0% | 17% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 17% now. | New this edition | Rank 1 of 172, unchanged |
| ABM | 4% | 13% | ▲+9Since September 2026: 4% → 13%, +9 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 5 → 2 of 71 |
| AI SDR | 20% | 27% | ▲+8Since September 2026: 20% → 27%, +8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 77, unchanged |
| Audience insights | 0% | 4% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 4% now. | New this edition | Rank 9 of 155, unchanged |
| Intent data | 25% | 29% | ▲+4Since September 2026: 25% → 29%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 1 of 60 |
| Sales intel | 76% | 73% | ▼−3Since September 2026: 76% → 73%, −3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 52, unchanged |
| Identity | 4% | 7% | ▲+3Since September 2026: 4% → 7%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 10 → 5 of 140 |
| Dialers | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 18 → 16 of 75 |
| Value selling | 0% | 2% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 2% now. | New this edition | Rank 9 of 116, unchanged |
| Sales engagement | 33% | 35% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 33% → 35%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 1 of 66 |
| Revenue intel | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 15 → 52 of 76 |
| DMP | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 17 → 30 of 159 |
| Enrichment | 70% | 71% | ▲+1Since September 2026: 70% → 71%, +1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 50, unchanged |
| CRM data quality | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 19 → 23 of 99 |
| Channel marketing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 103 of 124, unchanged |
| Lead routing | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 70 → 88 of 111 |
| Field sales | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 20 of 94, unchanged |
| Proximity | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 37 → 43 of 130 |
| Sales enablement | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 26 → 60 of 72 |
| CRM | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 47 of 64, unchanged |
| Data clean rooms | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 32 of 100, unchanged |
| Sales rooms | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 18 → 32 of 73 |
| Email deliverability | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 100 of 110, unchanged |
| Email marketing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 29 of 66, unchanged |
| Email verification | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 39 → 58 of 65 |
| Event lead capture | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 49 of 70, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Apollo.io across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Apollo.io across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 27 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 7 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 19 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 13 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 33 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 9 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 31 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 14 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 34 |
| Mistral Small | 9 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 22 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 28 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 5 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 15 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 10 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 25 |
| Kimi K2 | 18 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 33 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 14 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 30 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 24 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 7 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 16 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 9 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 23 |
By framing
Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.
FramingLabels by classFirst choices
Direct222 labels100
Paraphrase190 labels120
Comparative182 labels64not counted in share
Budget-constrained219 labels135
Scale-constrained82 labels15
Negative162 labels18not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1057 labels in all, every segment counted; 370 of the 452 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Apollo.io: Best "All-in-One" Platform for Budget-Conscious Mid-Market Teams... Choose Apollo.io. It combines contact databases with sequencing at an unbeatable price point.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Sales intel · direct prompt · first choice
“If you're looking for a single platform that gives you both discovery and outreach, go with Apollo.io. It's the go-to all-in-one choice for mid-market teams” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Sales intel · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Best for budget-conscious teams wanting database + outreach in one tab, giving high-end AI power to small teams who don't have a $5,000 monthly budget” Claude Haiku 4.5 · AI SDR · budget prompt · first choice
“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 · Intent data · budget prompt · first choice
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“Apollo's data quality issues are well-documented and compound fast, with 20-30% bounce rates being its most critical weakness” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Sales intel · negative prompt · hard negative
“Credit system is deceptive ... they profit when your data is wrong because you burn more credits.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Sales engagement · negative prompt · hard negative
“Both had LinkedIn pages yanked in 2024 for scraping violations and terms of service issues” MiniMax M2.5 · Sales intel · negative prompt · hard negative
“data accuracy and billing are the top pain points at scale” Muse Glimmer 30B · Enrichment · negative prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Apollo.io, over the 1056 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Apollo.io was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Apollo.io, over the 1056 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Apollo.io was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.
What carried it into the answer
The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Apollo.io. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 1000 of the 1056 answers that named Apollo.io and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
pipeline.zoominfo.com522
apollo.ioYour site314
demandbase.com281
g2.com258
salesmotion.io246
blog.hubspot.com210
prospeo.io206
amplemarket.com196
lusha.com177
salesforge.ai155
2,251 of the 2,565 domain citations in answers naming Apollo.io came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where Apollo.io stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where Apollo.io stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “b2b contact data and sales intelligence platform”
3
Position for “best b2b contact data and sales intelligence platform”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 33,100 a month (“apollo.io”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 396 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 111,608 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 8,058 · 734 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 15,553
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
73%
rank 1 of 52 in sales intel
First choices
370
across its categories
- Named in
- 1,056 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 1000 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on apollo.io
2,554
subdomains included
Content
2,005
counted in the table below
Documentation
105
Product · Integration
47 · 13
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 1,408 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 240 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 190 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 67 | undated | |||
| Webinar or virtual event | 49 | undated | |||
| News or press | 22 | 5 | 2026-09-15 | ||
| Case study | 17 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 8 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 4 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-15Apollo named flagship data partner for hunter salesforces new outbound sales agent news or press
- 2026-08-25Apollo appoints mark sieglock as chief product officer news or press
- 2026-08-13Apollo earns inc 5000 martech breakthrough award and g2 recognition news or press
- 2026-08-11Only 6 of go to market leaders think ai will replace their teams apollo report finds news or press
- 2026-07-23Apollo and san jose earthquakes announce official sleeve and go to market partnership bringing the ai gtm system to majo news or press
- 2026-06-03Apollo brings ai powered gtm workflows to perplexity computer for growing businesses news or press
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page apollo.io exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Apollo.io
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Apollo.io; a claim can dispute any of them.
Apollo 99Apollo Free 4Apollo AI 2Apollo Professional 1Lusha/Apollo 1
Follow Apollo.io
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Apollo.io.ShowHide
The company
Apollo.io.
ShowHideOn record
Wikidata- Website
- apollo.io
- Headquarters
- San Francisco, United States
- Founded
- 2015
Fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · LinkedIn · Crunchbase
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- The AI GTM System for Go-to-Market Teams
- For
- Go-to-Market Teams
- Price stated
- Free $0; Basic $49 per seat per month, billed annually; Professional $79 per seat per month, billed annually; Organization $119 per seat per month, (min 3 seats) billed annually apollo.io/pricing
- Starting price
- 0 apollo.io/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- No credit card required apollo.io
- Integrations claimed
- 200 apollo.io · 7 apollo.io/pricing pages disagree
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type IIISO 27001GDPRSOC 2CCPAISO/IEC 27001CASA Tier 2CPRA
- Hosting
- United States
- Customers named
- ClaitonLyon BakeryGleanZorroErnst & YoungOracleLyft
What Apollo.io's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: apollo.io, apollo.io/pricing, trust.apollo.io, apollo.io/product/api, apollo.io/customers. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Is this your product?
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Apollo.io's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Apollo.io, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Apollo.io by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Apollo.io is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Apollo.io, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where Apollo.io is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where Apollo.io is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideSales intelligence and contact data
AI models recommend Apollo.io first in Sales intelligence and contact data this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Data enrichment
AI models recommend Apollo.io first in Data enrichment this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Sales engagement platforms
AI models recommend Apollo.io first in Sales engagement platforms this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
B2B intent data providers
AI models recommend Apollo.io first in B2B intent data providers this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
AI SDR agents
AI models recommend Apollo.io first in AI SDR agents this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Market intelligence platforms
AI models recommend Apollo.io first in Market intelligence platforms this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Account-based marketing platforms
Apollo.io is among the products AI models recommend first in Account-based marketing platforms this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.