GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › DocHipo · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

DocHipo

3Judge labels

1First choices

0Negative labels

2 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. DocHipo was named 2 times in Proposals, 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 business37 of 61

under the label threshold

Mid-market12 of 79

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

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 DocHipo 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	2%	12 of 79	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by PandaDoc at 49%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	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	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained2 labels1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“consider starting with a free tier or low-cost option like DocHipo, PandaDoc's free plan, or even Google Workspace” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Proposals · budget prompt · first choice

“DocHipo – Best Free Plan Option ... Generous free tier for getting started” Kimi K2 · Proposals · 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 DocHipo, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and DocHipo was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Better Proposals2 of 31Not in the top three

Prospero2 of 31Not in the top three

Bonsai2 of 30Not in the top three

PandaDoc2 of 30Not in the top three

Proposify2 of 30Not in the top three

Proposally.ai1 of 31Not in the top three

Google Workspace1 of 30Not in the top three

HoneyBook1 of 30Not in the top three

Jotform1 of 30Not in the top three

PowerPoint1 of 30Not 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 DocHipo. 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 3 answers that named DocHipo and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

autogenai.com2

dochipo.comYour site2

flowcase.com2

betterproposals.io1

federicopresicci.com1

getaccept.com1

getcone.io1

guideflow.com1

lindy.ai1

lotuspetal.ai1

Eleven of the thirteen domain citations in answers naming DocHipo came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

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

dochipo.com/proposal-software-for-small-businesses2

flowcase.com/blog/top-10-proposal-management-software-for-small-businesses-20262

betterproposals.io/blog/proposal-management-software1

dochipo.com/best-software-for-proposals1

federicopresicci.com/blog/sales-enablement-technology/best-proposal-software1

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software1

getcone.io/blog/best-proposal-software-for-small-businesses1

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 DocHipo'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 DocHipo, 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 dochipo.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.