Every category where a model named Introw 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
Partner relationship management	Partner and channel	0%	15 of 50	0%	14	accepted challenger
Referral and partner programs	Partner and channel	0%	33 of 107	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by PartnerStack at 19%
Channel partner and local marketing	Partner and channel	0%	73 of 108	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by JourneyBee at 15%

Movement

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

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

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained4 labels1

Negative11 labels3not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative38 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

“Safer bets (high ratings, fewer complaints): Kiflo, Introw, Partnerplace” Grok 4.1 Fast · PRM · negative prompt · first choice

“Introw (fastest implementation, AI-native, CRM-centric)” Kimi K2 · PRM · negative prompt · first choice

“If you are looking for an ultra-modern, AI-driven alternative that lives directly inside HubSpot/Salesforce, look at Introw.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Referrals · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Introw combines CRM-integrated partner portals, deal and lead registration... a good fit for B2B SaaS companies” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Referrals · paraphrase 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 Introw, over the 38 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Introw was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PartnerStack32 of 386Not in the top three

Kiflo24 of 385Not in the top three

Salesforce PRM20 of 381Not in the top three

PartnerPortal.io17 of 385Not in the top three

Channeltivity16 of 381Not in the top three

Impartner15 of 383Not in the top three

impact.com15 of 382Not in the top three

Channelscaler15 of 380Not in the top three

Impartner PRM10 of 381Not in the top three

ZINFI9 of 381Not 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 Introw. 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 9 of the 38 answers that named Introw and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

monday.com7

partnerportal.io6

zinfi.com6

g2.com5

introw.ioYour site5

learn.g2.com5

gartner.com4

guideflow.com4

partnerplace.io4

b2bsaasreviews.com3

Forty-four of the forty-nine domain citations in answers naming Introw came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

monday.com/blog/crm-and-sales/prm-software7

learn.g2.com/best-prm-software5

zinfi.com/blog/partner-relationship-management-software-20265

gartner.com/reviews/market/partner-relationship-management-applications4

guideflow.com/blog/best-prm-software4

introw.io/blog/best-partner-relationship-management-software4

partnerplace.io/knowledge-base/what-are-the-best-prm-software-solutions-out-there-20264

partnerportal.io/partner-relationship-management-platforms4

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 Introw'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 Introw, 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 introw.io 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.