Apollo.io

Named in 43 judge labels across 2 categories by 6 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 13 first choices, 8 negative labels. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Best standing

26% in Sales engagement

Rank 2 of 32 products named in sales engagement platforms, accepted challenger. 1 of 6 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 15% of its 33 labels there were negative.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Apollo.io. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Vertical	First choices	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Sales engagement platforms	Sales	26%	2 of 32	15%	33	accepted challenger
B2B intent data providers	Sales	25%	2 of 40	30%	10	criticized challenger

By model

How each model treated Apollo.io across every prompt where it was named. Six models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Opus 5	2	3	0	2	7
Claude Opus 4.8	1	3	1	1	6
GPT-6 Astra	2	4	0	2	8
GPT-5.6 Sol	2	4	0	1	7
Gemini 3.1 Pro	5	3	0	2	10
Perplexity Sonar Pro	2	2	1	0	5

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“the best B2B intent data provider is usually Apollo.io because it bundles basic intent signals with contact data and outbound tools at a low entry price” Perplexity Sonar Pro · Intent data · budget prompt · first choice

“Apollo.io: Best All-in-One & Highest Value ... It is highly cost-effective and deploys incredibly fast.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Sales engagement · direct prompt · first choice

“For startups and budget-conscious teams, Apollo.io is widely considered the best all-around choice.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Sales engagement · budget prompt · first choice

“1. Apollo.io (for your core SDR outbound, contact data, and top-of-funnel Bombora-powered intent)” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Intent data · paraphrase 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 has drawn frequent criticism here) make it easy to sign up but harder to downgrade or cancel, with auto-renewing annual contracts” Claude Opus 4.8 · Sales engagement · negative prompt · soft negative

“Apollo has faced a class action alleging that despite failing to obtain proper consent from individuals in its database” Claude Opus 5 · Sales engagement · negative prompt · soft negative

“If your prospecting volume fluctuates or you’re still experimenting. Credits expire without rollover.” GPT-6 Astra · Sales engagement · negative prompt · soft negative

“Why to be cautious: A history of massive data leaks and questionable "customer data sharing" models.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Intent data · negative prompt · soft negative

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 14Apollo Professional 1Apollo’s buying-intent feature 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page gets a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes; 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 logo and one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or quadrants, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. Sponsorship is separate: a sponsor funds categories or buyer dimensions and is named on what it funded, and the rules are the same for every sponsor.