Every category where a model named LinkSquares 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
Contract lifecycle management and e-signature	Revenue operations	4%	7 of 65	7%	30	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for LinkSquares 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 LinkSquares 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	1	1	1	3
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	1	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	4	0	0	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	0	1	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	2	1	0	4
Mistral Small	1	1	2	0	4
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	2	0	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	3	0	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	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

Direct10 labels2

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative17 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative17 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative53 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 3 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-rated alternatives with fewer complaints: LinkSquares, Malbek, Juro (4.6-4.7/5, praised for ease/AI).” Grok 4.1 Fast · CLM · negative prompt · first choice

“LinkSquares is frequently cited as an excellent choice for mid-market companies.” MiniMax M2.5 · CLM · direct prompt · first choice

“Best Overall for Mid-Market B2B: LinkSquares” Mistral Small · CLM · direct prompt · first choice

“mid-market organizations often prioritize faster implementation and integration maturity, making platforms like LinkSquares strong candidates” Claude Haiku 4.5 · CLM · direct 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.

“Users reported issues with self-service flexibility for sales... lack of natural language search, and occasional glitches in the platform” Claude Haiku 4.5 · CLM · negative prompt · soft negative

“positioned more strongly for post-signature analytics than front-end negotiation” Perplexity Sonar · CLM · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as LinkSquares, over the 53 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and LinkSquares was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Ironclad46 of 5312Not in the top three

DocuSign CLM42 of 530Not in the top three

Agiloft35 of 531Not in the top three

Icertis34 of 537Not in the top three

Conga CLM32 of 530Not in the top three

Sirion30 of 536Not in the top three

Juro29 of 534Not in the top three

SpotDraft17 of 530Not in the top three

PandaDoc16 of 531Not in the top three

Malbek15 of 530Not 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 LinkSquares. 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 12 of the 53 answers that named LinkSquares and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ironcladapp.com7

gartner.com6

sirion.ai6

bindlegal.com5

g2.com5

spendflo.com5

summize.com5

conga.com4

contractsafe.com4

getaccept.com4

Fifty-one of the fifty-one domain citations in answers naming LinkSquares came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

sirion.ai/library/clm-platform/contract-management-software6

bindlegal.com/resources/best-software/best-clm-tools5

gartner.com/reviews/market/contract-life-cycle-management5

ironcladapp.com/journal/contract-management/best-contract-management-tools5

spendflo.com/blog/top-contract-lifecycle-management-software5

contractsafe.com/blog/best-contract-management-software4

getaccept.com/blog/best-contract-management-software4

haqq.ai/blog/contract-lifecycle-management-software4

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 LinkSquares'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 LinkSquares, 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 linksquares.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.