Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 21 → 19 of 63
11 categories · RankedFactors.ai
91Judge labels
20First choices
1Negative labels
13 / 14Models named it
11Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
7% in Intent data for mid-market buyers
Rank 4 of 60 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
3 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 13 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Factors.ai →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business10 of 68
2%3 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market4 of 60
7%13 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise16 of 46
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
In intent data · 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 Factors.ai 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2B intent data providers | Sales | 7% | 4 of 60 | 0% | 13 | accepted challenger | ▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Session replay and heatmaps | GTM data and infrastructure | 3% | 9 of 56 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Clarity at 33% | |
| Attribution and marketing mix modeling | Marketing | 3% | 9 of 123 | 0% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by Dreamdata at 27% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 1% → 4%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Data management platforms | GTM data and infrastructure | 2% | 13 of 159 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Segment at 37% | ▲+3Since September 2026: 0% → 3%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Customer intelligence and data science | GTM data and infrastructure | 2% | 18 of 142 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Amplitude at 18% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Web analytics | GTM data and infrastructure | 2% | 12 of 91 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Google Analytics 4 at 57% | |
| AI marketing agents | Marketing | 0% | 33 of 157 | 0% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Breeze at 24% | |
| Account-based marketing platforms | Marketing | 0% | 24 of 71 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by AdRoll ABM at 53% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Audience and consumer insights platforms | Marketing | 0% | 45 of 155 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by SparkToro at 19% | |
| Creative automation platforms | Marketing | 0% | 78 of 109 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Bannerflow at 19% | |
| Data enrichment | GTM data and infrastructure | 0% | 32 of 50 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Apollo.io at 73% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Factors.ai held within the floor in all eleven categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Intent data · by segment
Mid-market▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 18 → 7 of 58
Enterprise▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 7 → 15 of 44
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intent data | 0% | 4% | ▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 18 → 4 of 60 |
| Session replay | 0% | 4% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 4% now. | New this edition | Rank 9 of 56, unchanged |
| DMP | 0% | 3% | ▲+3Since September 2026: 0% → 3%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 72 → 13 of 159 |
| Customer intel | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 46 → 18 of 142 |
| Attribution & MMM | 1% | 4% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 1% → 4%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 15 → 9 of 123 |
| Web analytics | 0% | 2% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 2% now. | New this edition | Rank 12 of 91, unchanged |
| ABM | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 8 → 24 of 71 |
| AI marketing agents | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 33 of 157, unchanged |
| Audience insights | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 45 of 155, unchanged |
| Creative automation | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 78 of 109, unchanged |
| Enrichment | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 32 of 50, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Factors.ai across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Factors.ai across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
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
Direct37 labels9
Paraphrase27 labels9
Comparative12 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained6 labels2
Scale-constrained6 labelsNone
Negative3 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative91 labels in all, every segment counted; 20 of the 21 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.
“I'd recommend Factors.ai if your priority is *website visitor identification plus account-level behavior tracking*” Perplexity Sonar · Session replay · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Best for: Mid-market B2B teams wanting a balance of account identification (intent data) and multi-touch attribution.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Web analytics · direct prompt · first choice
“If I had to pick one, I'd shortlist Factors.ai Lite: it's listed at $199/month after a trial” GPT-6 Luna · Intent data · budget prompt · first choice
“Dreamdata and Factors.ai are highly recommended for purpose-built B2B journey attribution” Mistral Small · Attribution & MMM · paraphrase prompt · first choice
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 Factors.ai, over the 91 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Factors.ai was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Factors.ai, over the 91 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Factors.ai was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 Factors.ai. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 91 of the 91 answers that named Factors.ai and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
factors.aiYour site68
improvado.io28
cometly.com24
pipeline.zoominfo.com24
demandbase.com21
guideflow.com17
hockeystack.com16
rb2b.com16
zenabm.com15
thecmo.com14
175 of the 243 domain citations in answers naming Factors.ai came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
factors.ai ranks 8 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Factors.ai takes 7% of first choices and Apollo.io takes 27%.ShowHide
Search and answers
factors.ai ranks 8 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Factors.ai takes 7% of first choices and Apollo.io takes 27%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “b2b intent data provider”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best b2b intent data provider”
8
- Searches for its name, Google
- 590 a month (“factors.ai”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 1 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 8,319 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 3,776 · 141 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,632
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
7%
rank 4 of 60 in intent data
Segment leader
27%
Apollo.io
- First choices
- 20 across its categories
- Named in
- 91 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 91 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on factors.ai
927
subdomains included
Content
682
counted in the table below
Documentation
107
Product · Integration
15 · 1
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 429 | 0 | 2026-06-10 | ABM, SEO | |
| Comparison | 116 | 1 | 2026-09-11 | ABM, SEO | |
| Report or ebook | 45 | undated | SEO | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 36 | undated | ABM | ||
| Case study | 24 | undated | |||
| Podcast or video | 12 | undated | ABM | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 10 | undated | ABM | ||
| News or press | 6 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 2 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 2 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-116sense vs factors comparison
- 2026-06-10Product updates and releases blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page factors.ai exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Factors.ai
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Factors.ai; a claim can dispute any of them.
Factors 1Factors.AI 1Factors.ai Lite 1
Follow Factors.ai
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Factors.ai is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Factors.ai is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- The AI ABM & Attribution Platform for GTM Teams
- For
- GTM teams
- Price stated
- 0 factors.ai
- Starting price
- 0 factors.ai
- Free plan or trial
- Free trial available factors.ai
- Certifications
- SOC 2 type IIISO 27001GDPR CompliantCCPA compliantPECR compliantGDPRCCPAPECR
- Customers named
- SwarmiaDescopeAudienceViewAkeylessRocketlaneSprinklrEverstageUpflow
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations, hosting
What Factors.ai's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: factors.ai, factors.ai/pricing, trust.factors.ai, factors.ai/solutions/sales, factors.ai/customers. A claimed page can correct any of 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 Factors.ai'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 Factors.ai, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Factors.ai by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Factors.ai is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Factors.ai, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.