Grain

Named in 6 judge labels across 1 category by 4 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 0 first choices, 3 negative labels. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Standing

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Grain was named 6 times in Conversation intel, where Gong led with 59%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Grain. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Vertical	First choices	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Conversational intelligence and call recording	Sales	0%	41 of 50	50%	6	under 10 labels · led by Gong at 59%

By model

How each model treated Grain across every prompt where it was named. Six models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Opus 5	1	0	1	2
Claude Opus 4.8	0	1	0	1
GPT-6 Astra	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.6 Sol	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.1 Pro	1	0	1	2
Perplexity Sonar Pro	0	0	1	1

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Grain gives you the sales coaching and deal intelligence features you'd expect from Gong, but at a startup-friendly price.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Conversation intel · budget prompt · alternative

“roughly $15–39/user/mo, strong on video highlight reels and CRM logging” Claude Opus 5 · Conversation intel · 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.

“called out as meeting-note/transcription tools ... not equivalent to full conversation intelligence platforms” Perplexity Sonar Pro · Conversation intel · negative prompt · soft negative

“offer lightweight call summaries and talk-pattern metrics, though without advanced coaching tools” Claude Opus 5 · Conversation intel · comparative prompt · soft negative

“MeetGeek, Sembly, Avoma, Grain, and Fathom ... You should be highly cautious of them” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Conversation intel · negative prompt · soft negative

Names read as Grain

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

Every label used the canonical name.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page gets a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Grain, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a logo and one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or quadrants, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. Sponsorship is separate: a sponsor funds categories or buyer dimensions and is named on what it funded, and the rules are the same for every sponsor.