Every category where a model named CaptivateIQ Planning 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
Territory and quota planning	Revenue operations	4%	5 of 103	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by CaptivateIQ at 30%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for CaptivateIQ Planning yet. The next is due October 1, 2026. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated CaptivateIQ Planning across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0

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

Direct3 labels3

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative2 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 4 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.

“Best for mid-market teams connecting territory carving to quotas and incentive compensation in one system” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Territory planning · direct prompt · first choice

“If I had to pick one for most mid-market B2B companies, I'd usually choose: CaptivateIQ Planning” GPT-5.4 mini · Territory planning · direct prompt · first choice

“Teams wanting modern quota planning tied to commission logic” Kimi K2 · Territory planning · comparative 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.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as CaptivateIQ Planning, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CaptivateIQ Planning was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Fullcast4 of 70Not in the top three

Xactly4 of 70Not in the top three

Anaplan3 of 71Not in the top three

eSpatial3 of 70Not in the top three

BoogieBoard2 of 70Not in the top three

Geopointe2 of 70Not in the top three

Lative2 of 70Not in the top three

Maptive2 of 70Not in the top three

Salesforce Maps2 of 70Not in the top three

Varicent Territory and Quota Planning1 of 71Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 CaptivateIQ Planning. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 5 of the 7 answers that named CaptivateIQ Planning and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

captivateiq.comYour site5

xactlycorp.com3

guideflow.com2

pipeline.zoominfo.com2

anaplan.com1

articsledge.com1

bitscale.ai1

g2.com1

lative.ai1

monday.com1

Thirteen of the eighteen domain citations in answers naming CaptivateIQ Planning came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

captivateiq.com/blog/territory-planning-software-20263

captivateiq.com/blog/sales-quota-management-software2

pipeline.zoominfo.com/sales/sales-territory-management-software2

xactlycorp.com/pricing2

anaplan.com/solutions/go-to-market-planning1

articsledge.com/post/territory-planning-software1

bitscale.ai/blogs/best-territory-planning-tools1

captivateiq.com/blog/sales-territory-mapping-software1

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 CaptivateIQ Planning'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 CaptivateIQ Planning, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at captivateiq.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.