Index › Vendors › Logik.io · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Logik.io

13Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

10 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.

Standing

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Logik.io was named 7 times in CPQ, where DealHub led with 62%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market14 of 73

under the label threshold

Enterprise11 of 60

under the label threshold

In cpq · 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 Logik.io 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
CPQ	Revenue operations	0%	14 of 73	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by DealHub at 62%

Movement

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

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Best for: Teams extending an existing CPQ with a composable configuration engine” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CPQ · comparative prompt · alternative

“If you have highly complex product logic but want a modern, lightning-fast UI.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CPQ · scale 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 Logik.io, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Logik.io was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Conga CPQ13 of 130Not in the top three

DealHub12 of 133Not in the top three

SAP CPQ12 of 130Not in the top three

Oracle CPQ11 of 130Not in the top three

Salesforce Revenue Cloud8 of 133Not in the top three

Tacton8 of 131Not in the top three

PROS Smart CPQ8 of 130Not in the top three

Salesforce CPQ7 of 132Not in the top three

Experlogix7 of 130Not in the top three

PandaDoc6 of 130Not 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 Logik.io. 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 1 of the 13 answers that named Logik.io and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

conga.com1

docs.oracle.com1

salesforce.com1

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

Pages cited

conga.com/press/conga-recognized-2026-gartner-magic-quadrant-configure-price-and-quote-app1

conga.com/salesforce1

docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/configure-price-quote1

salesforce.com/en-us/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/IDC-CPQ_Jan-2025.pdf1

salesforce.com/sales/cpq1

salesforce.com/sales/cpq/what-is-cpq1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Logik.io

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

Logik.io (now ServiceNow CPQ) 1

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 Logik.io'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 Logik.io, 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.