GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › ChiliCal · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ChiliCal

4Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ChiliCal was named 3 times in Scheduling, where Calendly led with 59%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business38 of 65

under the label threshold

Mid-market49 of 77

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In scheduling · 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 ChiliCal 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
Meeting scheduling	Sales	0%	49 of 77	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Calendly at 59%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ChiliCal 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 ChiliCal across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Use Chili Piper/ChiliCal if scheduling is part of a *sales funnel*” Perplexity Sonar · Scheduling · 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.

“some vendors enforce minimum purchases (e.g., ChiliCal requires 200 seats minimum)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Scheduling · scale prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ChiliCal, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ChiliCal was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Calendly4 of 44Not in the top three

Doodle3 of 40Not in the top three

HubSpot Meetings3 of 40Not in the top three

SavvyCal3 of 40Not in the top three

Cal.com2 of 40Not in the top three

Chili Piper2 of 40Not in the top three

Google Calendar2 of 40Not in the top three

Assistant.to1 of 40Not in the top three

Clockwise1 of 40Not in the top three

Drift1 of 40Not 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 ChiliCal. 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 2 of the 4 answers that named ChiliCal and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

calendly.com2

manyreach.com2

serviceform.com2

cal.com1

doodle.com1

gitnux.org1

guideflow.com1

koalendar.com1

lindy.ai1

meetergo.com1

Thirteen of the thirteen domain citations in answers naming ChiliCal came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

manyreach.com/blog/meeting-scheduling-tools2

cal.com/blog/best-scheduling-apps1

calendly.com/1

calendly.com/blog/meeting-scheduling-software1

doodle.com/en1

gitnux.org/best/meeting-scheduler-software1

guideflow.com/blog/online-appointment-scheduling-software-tools1

koalendar.com/blog/best-meeting-scheduling-software1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ChiliCal

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

Chili Piper/ChiliCal 1

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 ChiliCal'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 ChiliCal, 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 chilical.ai 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.