Every category where a model named Guideflow 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
Customer education and LMS	Customer	0%	14 of 81	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by TalentLMS at 33%
Loyalty, advocacy and referrals	Marketing	0%	46 of 124	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Smile.io at 24%
Digital adoption and onboarding	Customer	0%	20 of 58	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Userpilot at 29%
Sales coaching and training	Sales	0%	48 of 124	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by SalesHood at 27%
Account-based marketing platforms	Marketing	0%	51 of 76	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by AdRoll ABM at 56%
Billing and subscription management	Revenue operations	0%	36 of 57	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Chargebee at 58%
Channel partner and local marketing	Partner and channel	0%	70 of 108	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by JourneyBee at 15%
Community platforms	Customer	0%	38 of 74	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Higher Logic Vanilla at 23%
Customer intelligence and data science	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	103 of 158	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Google Analytics 4 at 16%
Data warehouse and reverse ETL for marketing	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	56 of 100	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Hightouch at 42%
Knowledge base and self-service	Customer	0%	56 of 96	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Notion at 18%
Print	Marketing	0%	36 of 58	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Postalytics at 54%
Sales enablement and content	Sales	0%	46 of 81	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Dock at 19%
Workflow automation and iPaaS	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	44 of 76	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Workato at 38%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	2	1	3
Mistral Small	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	3
Llama 4 Maverick	1	7	8
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	2
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	4	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

Direct13 labels2

Paraphrase6 labelsNone

Comparative13 labelsNone

Budget-constrained20 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative58 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“Guideflow Free: $0 (up to 5 guideflows, watermarked). Interactive demos; paid from $35\u201340/month.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Digital adoption · budget prompt · alternative

“Choose Guideflow if: You need quick, interactive product demos rather than formal courses.” Kimi K2 · Customer education · comparative prompt · alternative

“No-code product tours/demos (embed in-app/email). | Watermark on demos” Grok 4.1 Fast · Customer education · budget prompt · alternative

“Contextual In-App Help | Interactive Demo Tool | Guideflow” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Customer education · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Guideflow, over the 58 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Guideflow was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

TalentLMS15 of 5810Not in the top three

LearnWorlds13 of 583Not in the top three

Skilljar11 of 582Not in the top three

UserGuiding10 of 586Not in the top three

Docebo10 of 580Not in the top three

Whatfix8 of 581Not in the top three

Ambassador7 of 580Not in the top three

GrowSurf7 of 580Not in the top three

Influitive6 of 581Not in the top three

WalkMe6 of 581Not 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 Guideflow. 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 3 of the 58 answers that named Guideflow and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

guideflow.comYour site3

gartner.com2

allego.com1

apollo.io1

appcues.com1

apty.ai1

assembly.com1

blog.hubspot.com1

captivateiq.com1

chameleon.io1

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

Pages cited

allego.com/blog/best-sales-enablement-tools1

apollo.io/insights/best-sales-enablement-tools1

appcues.com/blog/product-adoption-software-platforms1

apty.ai/blog/best-digital-adoption-platforms1

apty.ai/blog/digital-adoption-platforms-failures1

assembly.com/blog/best-knowledge-base-software1

blog.hubspot.com/sales/sales-enablement-platform1

captivateiq.com/blog/sales-enablement-platform1

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 Guideflow'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 Guideflow, 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 guideflow.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.