GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › ClientPoint · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

ClientPoint

4Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

3 of 12Models named it

2Categories

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. ClientPoint was named 3 times in Proposals and 1 other category, where PandaDoc led with 49%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market26 of 79

under the label threshold

Enterprise29 of 76

under the label threshold

In proposals · 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 ClientPoint 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
Proposal software	Revenue operations	0%	26 of 79	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by PandaDoc at 49%
Digital sales rooms	Sales	0%	26 of 59	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Aligned at 40%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
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	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1
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 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

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.

“Built for mid-sized to large B2B organizations, it delivers interactive proposals and presentations” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Proposals · direct 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 ClientPoint, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ClientPoint was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

DealHub4 of 41Not in the top three

PandaDoc3 of 42Not in the top three

GetAccept2 of 40Not in the top three

Oneflow2 of 40Not in the top three

Proposify1 of 41Not in the top three

Qwilr1 of 41Not in the top three

Accord1 of 40Not in the top three

Aligned1 of 40Not in the top three

Allego1 of 40Not in the top three

Better Proposals1 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 ClientPoint. 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 ClientPoint and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

getaccept.com2

guideflow.com2

heyiris.ai2

oneflow.com2

ratiotech.com2

thedigitalprojectmanager.com2

autobound.ai1

autogenai.com1

blog.quotewerks.com1

qwilr.com1

Sixteen of the sixteen domain citations in answers naming ClientPoint came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software2

guideflow.com/blog/best-proposal-software2

heyiris.ai/blog/automated-proposal-builder-tools2

oneflow.com/blog/best-proposal-management-software2

ratiotech.com/blog/best-proposal-management-software2

thedigitalprojectmanager.com/tools/best-proposal-software2

autobound.ai/blog/best-proposal-automation-tools-b2b-sales-teams1

autogenai.com/blog/best-proposal-management-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 ClientPoint'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 ClientPoint, 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 clientpoint.co 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.