Every category where a model named eSpatial 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
Territory and quota planning	Revenue operations	2%	9 of 103	11%	28	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	3	0	0	3
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	3	0	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	3	1	0	4
Mistral Small	0	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	0	2	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	2	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	2	0	0	3
Kimi K2	0	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	0	2

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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative23 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained10 labels1

Scale-constrained8 labelsNone

Negative13 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative65 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 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.

“🏆 Top Recommendation: eSpatial” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Territory planning · budget prompt · first choice

“eSpatial is best for mid-market teams that want algorithmic territory balancing and clear visual mapping” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Territory planning · budget prompt · alternative

“Look for tools (like eSpatial or Varicent) that use algorithms to automatically assign accounts” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Territory planning · scale prompt · alternative

“Maps ZIP codes, counties, and drive times but doesn't handle quota allocation or capacity modeling” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Territory planning · 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.

“Mapping-first tools ... but no quota or capacity planning. Good only if territories are purely geographic.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Territory planning · direct prompt · soft negative

“Great tools but start at $1,495–$2,400/year, only economical if you need algorithmic territory balancing.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Territory planning · budget prompt · soft negative

“is likely a step up in cost and complexity” Perplexity Sonar · Territory planning · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as eSpatial, over the 65 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and eSpatial was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Maptive48 of 654Not in the top three

Anaplan47 of 658Not in the top three

Fullcast46 of 6510Not in the top three

CaptivateIQ43 of 659Not in the top three

Varicent40 of 655Not in the top three

Salesforce Maps36 of 650Not in the top three

Badger Maps25 of 653Not in the top three

QuotaPath23 of 653Not in the top three

Xactly20 of 650Not in the top three

MapBusinessOnline16 of 653Not 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 eSpatial. 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 65 answers that named eSpatial and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

pipeline.zoominfo.com10

captivateiq.com9

guideflow.com9

articsledge.com7

bitscale.ai7

salesmotion.io7

worldmetrics.org6

gitnux.org5

maptive.com5

cleverly.co4

Sixty-nine of the sixty-nine domain citations in answers naming eSpatial came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

pipeline.zoominfo.com/sales/sales-territory-management-software10

captivateiq.com/blog/territory-planning-software-20269

articsledge.com/post/territory-planning-software7

bitscale.ai/blogs/best-territory-planning-tools7

salesmotion.io/blog/sales-territory-mapping-software6

worldmetrics.org/best/territory-planning-software6

guideflow.com/blog/sales-territory-management-software5

maptive.com/15-best-sales-territory-mapping-software5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as eSpatial

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

eSpatial / Maptive / Geopointe 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 eSpatial'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 eSpatial, 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 espatial.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.