GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › Content360.io · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Content360.io

4Judge labels

0First choices

4Negative labels

4 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.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Content360.io was named 3 times in Content marketing, where HubSpot Content Hub led with 30%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business116 of 150

under the label threshold

Mid-market157 of 159

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In content marketing · 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 Content360.io 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
Content marketing platforms	Marketing	0%	157 of 159	100%	3	under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Content Hub at 30%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Content360.io 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 Content360.io across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	1	1

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative4 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.

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.

“Scam allegations - Multiple reports of being a "total scam" with unresolved refund requests” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Content marketing · negative prompt · hard negative

“Complaints about a "money-back guarantee" that users say isn't honored” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Content marketing · negative prompt · hard negative

“Reports of scheduled posts failing to publish; Refund difficulties reported by some users” MiniMax M2.5 · Content marketing · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Content360.io, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Content360.io was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Contently2 of 40Not in the top three

Later2 of 40Not in the top three

Skyword2 of 40Not in the top three

Enji1 of 41Not in the top three

HubSpot Marketing/Content Hub1 of 41Not in the top three

Adobe GenStudio1 of 40Not in the top three

Brandwatch1 of 40Not in the top three

Buffer1 of 40Not in the top three

Builderall1 of 40Not in the top three

BuzzSumo1 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.

Names read as Content360.io

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Content360.io; a claim can dispute any of them.

content360.io 1

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 Content360.io'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 Content360.io, 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 content.one 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.