GTM AI Index
Index Vendors › Lob · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Ranked

Lob

154Judge labels
25First choices
38Negative labels
12 of 12Models named it
1Category
September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
37% in Direct mail for enterprise buyers
Rank 2 of 58 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 12 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 27% of its 48 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentStrongest at enterprise.
In direct mail · 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 Lob 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
PrintMarketing9%2 of 5827%48criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Lob 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 Lob across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.501001
GPT-5.4 mini11002
Gemini 3.5 Flash21126
Perplexity Sonar12014
Grok 4.1 Fast04026
Mistral Small11114
DeepSeek V4 Flash13026
Llama 4 Maverick00101
Qwen 3.7 Flash11013
Kimi K213026
GLM 4.7 FlashX11114
MiniMax M2.503115

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
Direct27 labels6
Paraphrase24 labels7
Comparative34 labels13not counted in share
Budget-constrained22 labels7
Scale-constrained18 labels5
Negative29 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative154 labels in all, every segment counted; 25 of the 39 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.

“Postalytics or Lob are strong starting points if you want CRM-connected marketing automation” Kimi K2 · Direct mail · scale prompt · first choice
“1. Lob - API-First Platform ... Lob - Complete REST API, webhook support, postal IQ routing” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Direct mail · comparative prompt · first choice
“Choose PostGrid or Lob if you want API-first, developer-controlled automation” Perplexity Sonar · Direct mail · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend Lob as the safest overall choice for print and direct mail marketing.” GPT-5.4 mini · Direct mail · 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.

“Platforms to Avoid on a Tight Budget- Lob — Great API, but the $260–550/month platform fee” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Direct mail · budget prompt · hard negative
“SaaS "Subscription Traps" to Avoid on a Budget ... they are not ideal for tight budgets” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Direct mail · budget prompt · hard negative
“Steep Learning Curve: Complex API documentation and lack of guidance for non-developers” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Direct mail · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid Lob ($260-$550/month) ... their monthly fees are too high for limited budgets.” Kimi K2 · Direct mail · budget prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Lob, over the 154 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Lob was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Sendoso106 of 1544Not in the top three
PostGrid91 of 1549Not in the top three
PFL56 of 1546Not in the top three
Click2Mail55 of 1546Not in the top three
Reachdesk55 of 1541Not in the top three
Mailjoy44 of 1544Not in the top three
Postal36 of 1540Not in the top three
Postie22 of 1540Not 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 Lob. 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 26 of the 154 answers that named Lob and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

postalytics.com17
guideflow.com14
lob.com13
postgrid.com13
g2.com12
cience.com11
gartner.com10
gitnux.org10
businessage.com8
softwareadvice.com8

No domain is on file for Lob, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

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 Lob'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 Lob, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.