Every category where a model named Proposable 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
Proposal software	Revenue operations	2%	11 of 79	10%	10	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained8 labels1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“Proposable if you need CRM integrations and analytics on a tight budget” MiniMax M2.5 · Proposals · budget prompt · first choice

“A balanced proposal tool for mid-market teams wanting more than basic features but less than enterprise-level complexity” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Proposals · direct prompt · alternative

“A simple, lightweight option with a solid template library, built-in e-signatures” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Proposals · budget prompt · alternative

“Simple templates, e-sign, CRM integrations, analytics. Great for startups.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Proposals · budget 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.

“Proposable — Lightweight but Problematic” Kimi K2 · Proposals · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Proposable, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Proposable was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PandaDoc24 of 258Not in the top three

Better Proposals19 of 255Not in the top three

Proposify19 of 251Not in the top three

Qwilr14 of 250Not in the top three

Proposally.ai10 of 253Not in the top three

Bonsai10 of 251Not in the top three

Oneflow9 of 252Not in the top three

Prospero9 of 252Not in the top three

Loopio8 of 251Not in the top three

Nusii8 of 250Not 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 Proposable. 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 5 of the 25 answers that named Proposable and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

autogenai.com4

flowcase.com4

getaccept.com4

guideflow.com3

pandadoc.com3

federicopresicci.com2

heyiris.ai2

inventive.ai2

lindy.ai2

qwilr.com2

Twenty-eight of the twenty-eight domain citations in answers naming Proposable came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

autogenai.com/blog/best-proposal-management-software4

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software4

guideflow.com/blog/best-proposal-software3

federicopresicci.com/blog/sales-enablement-technology/best-proposal-software2

flowcase.com/blog/top-10-proposal-management-software-for-small-businesses-20262

flowcase.com/blog/top-proposal-management-solutions-for-enterprise-12-solutions-compared2

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software-platforms-for-enterprise-sales-teams2

heyiris.ai/blog/automated-proposal-builder-tools2

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 Proposable'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 Proposable, 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 proposable.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.