Cognism

Named in 15 judge labels across 2 categories by 4 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 1 first choice, 1 negative label. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Best standing

4% in Intent data

Rank 6 of 40 products named in b2b intent data providers, accepted challenger. 1 of 6 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 7% of its 14 labels there were negative.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Cognism. 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
B2B intent data providers	Sales	4%	6 of 40	7%	14	accepted challenger
Sales engagement platforms	Sales	0%	25 of 32	0%	1	under 10 labels

By model

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Opus 5	0	2	1	0	3
Claude Opus 4.8	0	1	4	1	6
GPT-6 Astra	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.6 Sol	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.1 Pro	1	1	2	0	4
Perplexity Sonar Pro	0	2	0	0	2

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“If you are heavily Outbound/Sales-Led: Go with Cognism.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Intent data · direct prompt · first choice

“you can access Surge data bundled inside tools like Cognism, ZoomInfo, or via LinkedIn/programmatic ad platforms at a fraction of the standalone cost” Claude Opus 5 · Intent data · budget prompt · alternative

“Strong in EMEA/international coverage... Worth considering if you sell into Europe.” Claude Opus 4.8 · Intent data · direct prompt · alternative

“Cognism and Dealfront are the standard answers for GDPR-constrained EU targeting.” Claude Opus 5 · Intent data · 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.

“mid-range platforms like ZoomInfo and Cognism typically start at $15K–$20K/yr” Claude Opus 4.8 · Intent data · budget prompt · soft negative

Names read as Cognism

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Cognism; 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 Cognism, 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.