Every category where a model named PitchBook 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	Since September 2026
Market intelligence platforms	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	153 of 172	50%	10	criticized challenger
Competitive intelligence tools	Marketing	0%	70 of 86	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Kompyte at 38%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for PitchBook yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated PitchBook across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	1	1	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	2
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	0	1	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labelsNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative30 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.

“Gold standard for verified funding/valuation data and investor networks” Kimi K2 · Market intelligence · comparative prompt · alternative

“prioritize verified databases (like CapIQ, PitchBook, or CB Insights)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Market intelligence · negative prompt · alternative

“institutional standard for private market data” Muse Glimmer 30B · Market intelligence · 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.

“CB Insights and PitchBook can be useful for funding, investors, and M&A, but they are not end-to-end competitive and market intelligence monitoring platforms.” Perplexity Sonar · Market intelligence · negative prompt · soft negative

“platforms like *PitchBook* or *CB Insights* are the industry standards for investment research, they cost tens of thousands of dollars” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Market intelligence · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“Cited at $30,000+/yr minimum... the price and workflow lock it to VC/PE/CorpDev with dedicated research teams.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Market intelligence · negative prompt · soft negative

“but overkill for most mid-market companies” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Market intelligence · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as PitchBook, over the 30 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PitchBook was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ZoomInfo20 of 304Not among the top eight

CB Insights19 of 302Not among the top eight

AlphaSense17 of 304Not among the top eight

Crayon13 of 301Not among the top eight

Klue13 of 301Not among the top eight

Crunchbase11 of 301Not among the top eight

Similarweb11 of 300Not among the top eight

Semrush10 of 300Not among the top eight

Contify8 of 301Not among the top eight

Apollo.io6 of 303Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 PitchBook. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 23 of the 30 answers that named PitchBook and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

pipeline.zoominfo.com13

alpha-sense.com12

contify.com8

worldmetrics.org6

demandbase.com5

g2.com5

gartner.com5

infomineo.com5

marketintelligencetools.com5

meltwater.com5

Sixty-nine of the sixty-nine domain citations in answers naming PitchBook came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

pipeline.zoominfo.com/sales/market-intelligence-tools9

alpha-sense.com/resources/product-articles/market-intelligence-tools7

infomineo.com/services/business-research/market-intelligence/best-market-intelligence-tool5

contify.com/resources/blog/best-competitive-intelligence-tools4

demandbase.com/blog/market-intelligence-tools4

toolradar.com/guides/best-market-intelligence-tools4

cleverx.com/blog/best-b2b-market-research-tools-compared-in-20263

contify.com/resources/blog/alphasense-alternatives3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

pitchbook.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, PitchBook takes 0% of first choices and Apollo.io takes 17%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “market intelligence platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “best market intelligence platform”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 40,500 a month (“pitchbook”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 874 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 2,831,172 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 559,524 · 17,626 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 51,984
Paid Google search: 10 searches its ads show for, about 61 clicks and $521 a month (estimate)

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

120+ ads · 95 text, 13 image, 12 video · 120 shown in the last 30 days

First shown October 2021, as PitchBook Data, Inc., verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 47 in the year, 73 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 153 of 172 in market intelligence

Segment leader

17%

Apollo.io

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 30 answers
Its own site cited: in 23 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

Follow PitchBook

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

The company

PitchBook is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: private capital market news, analysis, and trends
pitchbook.com
Free plan or trial: Request a free trial pitchbook.com
Not stated on the pages read: Who it is for, price, starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers

What PitchBook's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: pitchbook.com. A claimed page can correct any of 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 PitchBook'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 PitchBook, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for PitchBook by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where PitchBook is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name PitchBook, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.