| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landing pages and interactive content | Marketing | 0% | 27 of 69 | 29% | 14 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Affiliate and partner management | Partner and channel | 0% | 43 of 94 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by PartnerStack at 49% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Marketing automation and campaign management | Marketing | 0% | 50 of 59 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Marketing Hub at 63% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Webinar and virtual event platforms | Marketing | 0% | 58 of 67 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Livestorm at 25% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landing pages | 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 77 → 27 of 69 |
| Affiliate | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 43 of 94, unchanged |
| Marketing automation | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 50 of 59, unchanged |
| Webinars | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 58 of 67, 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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Choose ClickFunnels if: You are selling a digital product or course” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Landing pages · comparative prompt · alternative
“ClickFunnels — Best for Full Sales Funnels & Ecommerce” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Landing pages · comparative prompt · alternative
“ClickFunnels — Best for Full Sales Funnels” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Landing pages · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best for funnels/sales: ClickFunnels.” GPT-5.4 mini · Landing pages · comparative prompt · alternative
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.
“Why to avoid: While tools like ClickFunnels are great for building landing pages, their native email automation is usually weak.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Marketing automation · negative prompt · hard negative
“Who should avoid: Anyone who just needs a clean, standalone landing page and is on a budget.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Landing pages · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid: ClickFunnels (unless you have a dedicated funnel manager)” Kimi K2 · Landing pages · negative prompt · hard negative
“ClickFunnels can be expensive and may not offer the best value for simple landing page needs” Mistral Small · Landing pages · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 33 of the 38 answers that named ClickFunnels and are not a share of its labels.
Eighty-six of the ninety-four domain citations in answers naming ClickFunnels came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Template or tool | 1,478 | 0 | 2019-03-31 | ||
| Blog | 20 | 8 | 2026-09-24 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 11 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 3 | 3 | 2026-08-27 | ||
| News or press | 1 | undated |
Every page clickfunnels.com 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. Read September 29, 2026.
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.
What ClickFunnels's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: clickfunnels.com, clickfunnels.com/pricing, clickfunnels.com/features/crm, clickfunnels.com/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 ClickFunnels'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 ClickFunnels, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for ClickFunnels by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: