CaliberMind

Named in 8 judge labels across 2 categories by 5 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 3 first choices, 0 negative labels. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Best standing

11% in Attribution & MMM

Rank 5 of 82 products named in attribution and marketing mix modeling. 2 of 6 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 6 labels there were negative.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named CaliberMind. 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
Attribution and marketing mix modeling	Marketing	11%	5 of 82	0%	6	under 10 labels
Customer data platforms	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	18 of 35	0%	2	under 10 labels

By model

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

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

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Best overall: CaliberMind—provided you are an upper-mid-market company with a reasonably mature RevOps/data function.” GPT-5.6 Sol · Attribution & MMM · direct prompt · first choice

“I’d shortlist CaliberMind as the best single platform for attribution plus MMM.” GPT-5.6 Sol · Attribution & MMM · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“I'd put CaliberMind first on your shortlist.” GPT-6 Astra · Attribution & MMM · direct prompt · first choice

“Choose CaliberMind if your biggest pain point isn't moving product data around, but rather understanding B2B marketing attribution” Gemini 3.1 Pro · CDP · paraphrase prompt · alternative

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.

No model argued against it.

Names read as CaliberMind

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as CaliberMind; a claim can dispute any of them.

Every label used the canonical name.

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 CaliberMind, 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.