Every category where a model named Concord 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
Contract lifecycle management and e-signature	Revenue operations	6%	5 of 65	0%	19	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	2	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	2	0	3
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

Direct11 labels1

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative10 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained20 labels5

Scale-constrained5 labels1

Negative8 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative58 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 11 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.

“My top recommendation: Concord for its flat pricing and comprehensive features” Mistral Small · CLM · budget prompt · first choice

“Juro or Concord would be the best starting points” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CLM · direct prompt · first choice

“I'd usually start with Concord” GPT-5.4 mini · CLM · budget prompt · first choice

“SMBs often benefit from affordable contract lifecycle management tools like PandaDoc or Concord” Claude Haiku 4.5 · CLM · budget 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 Concord, over the 58 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Concord was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PandaDoc49 of 5818Not in the top three

Ironclad40 of 582Not in the top three

ContractSafe39 of 5812Not in the top three

DocuSign CLM28 of 580Not in the top three

Juro23 of 586Not in the top three

Agiloft23 of 581Not in the top three

Icertis19 of 580Not in the top three

Zoho Contracts16 of 585Not in the top three

ContractWorks15 of 582Not in the top three

SpotDraft14 of 582Not 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 Concord. 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 11 of the 58 answers that named Concord and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

worksbuddy.ai9

sirion.ai8

getaccept.com6

juro.com6

bindlegal.com5

conga.com5

ironcladapp.com5

contractsafe.com4

g2.com4

gartner.com4

Fifty-six of the fifty-six domain citations in answers naming Concord came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

worksbuddy.ai/blogs/what-are-the-best-contract-management-lifecycle-software-for-small-bus7

getaccept.com/blog/best-contract-management-software6

juro.com/learn/clm-contract-lifecycle-management-software6

conga.com/resources/blog/contract-management-tools5

sirion.ai/library/clm-platform/contract-management-software5

bindlegal.com/resources/best-software/best-clm-tools4

gartner.com/reviews/market/contract-life-cycle-management4

guideflow.com/blog/best-contract-lifecycle-management-software4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

The company

Concord.

Website: concord.app
Headquarters: Austin
Founded: 2014

From Wikidata, fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata

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 Concord'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 Concord, 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 concord.app 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.