GTM AI Index
Index › Vendors › Conga · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Ranked

Conga

38Judge labels
4First choices
5Negative labels
12 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.
Best standing
8% in Proposals for enterprise buyers
Rank 22 of 79 in the mid-market standing
0 of 12 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 5 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business56 of 61
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market22 of 79
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise5 of 76
8%28 labels
accepted challenger
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 Conga 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
Proposal softwareRevenue operations0%22 of 790%5under 10 labels · led by PandaDoc at 49%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Conga 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 Conga across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast00101
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00101
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K200101
GLM 4.7 FlashX00101
MiniMax M2.500101

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
Direct6 labelsNone
Paraphrase11 labels3
Comparative7 labelsNone
Budget-constrained3 labels1
Scale-constrained4 labelsNone
Negative7 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative38 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 4 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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 Conga, over the 38 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Conga was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
PandaDoc31 of 3810Not in the top three
DealHub26 of 384Not in the top three
GetAccept20 of 384Not in the top three
Proposify20 of 381Not in the top three
Qwilr16 of 382Not in the top three
Responsive14 of 386Not in the top three
Loopio13 of 387Not in the top three
Better Proposals11 of 381Not in the top three
Bonsai6 of 380Not in the top three
Oneflow6 of 380Not 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 Conga. 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 7 of the 38 answers that named Conga and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

getaccept.com6
autogenai.com4
sifthub.io4
flowcase.com3
g2.com3
guideflow.com3
responsive.io3
arphie.ai2
blog.quotewerks.com2
gitnux.org2

Thirty-two of the thirty-two domain citations in answers naming Conga came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software6
autogenai.com/blog/best-proposal-management-software4
sifthub.io/blog/best-proposal-software-tools4
flowcase.com/blog/top-proposal-management-solutions-for-enterprise-12-solutions-compared3
g2.com/categories/proposal3
getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software-platforms-for-enterprise-sales-teams3
guideflow.com/blog/best-proposal-software3
responsive.io/blog/best-proposal-software-comparison3

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 Conga'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 Conga, 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 conga.com 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.

Subscribe to the pack