Small businessgoneNot named this edition; 0% in September 2026.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsNot ranked
2 categories · RankedPROS Smart CPQ
32Judge labels
1First choices
1Negative labels
12 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
0% in CPQ for mid-market buyers
Rank 13 of 66 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 10% of its 10 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of PROS Smart CPQ →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small businessnot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
Mid-market13 of 66
0%10 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise9 of 49
0%18 labels
accepted challenger
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 PROS Smart CPQ 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPQ | Revenue operations | 0% | 13 of 66 | 10% | 10 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Value selling tools | Sales | 0% | 63 of 116 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Minoa at 21% |
Movement
Since September 2026, PROS Smart CPQ held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · CPQ · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 11 of 62, unchanged
Enterprise▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 6 → 9 of 41
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPQ | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 11 → 13 of 66 |
| Value selling | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 63 of 116, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated PROS Smart CPQ across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated PROS Smart CPQ across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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
Direct6 labelsNone
Paraphrase5 labels1
Comparative16 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative4 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative32 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.
“Choose PROS or Oracle Smart Pricer if you need to change prices based on profitability” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CPQ · comparative prompt · alternative
“PROS Smart CPQ is a strong fit when the goal is to show price/value tradeoffs” GPT-5.4 mini · Value selling · direct prompt · alternative
“Specializes in real-time, dynamic pricing and AI-driven recommendations.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CPQ · direct prompt · alternative
“Oracle CPQ, PROS, or PandaDoc” Grok 4.20 · 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.
“consistent negative mentions about its integration capabilities” Claude Haiku 4.5 · CPQ · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as PROS Smart CPQ, over the 32 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PROS Smart CPQ was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as PROS Smart CPQ, over the 32 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PROS Smart CPQ was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 PROS Smart CPQ. 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 32 of the 32 answers that named PROS Smart CPQ and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
conga.com19
qobra.co19
albato.com16
everstage.com14
guideflow.com14
salesbricks.com12
monday.com11
dealhub.io9
financesonline.com9
g2.com9
132 of the 132 domain citations in answers naming PROS Smart CPQ came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
pros.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, PROS Smart CPQ takes 0% of first choices and DealHub takes 57%.ShowHide
Search and answers
pros.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, PROS Smart CPQ takes 0% of first choices and DealHub takes 57%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “cpq software”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best cpq software”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 40 a month (“pros smart cpq”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 17,307 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 1,774 · 118 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 2,815
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 13 of 66 in CPQ
Segment leader
57%
DealHub
- First choices
- 1 across its categories
- Named in
- 32 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 32 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 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.
Names read as PROS Smart CPQ
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as PROS Smart CPQ; a claim can dispute any of them.
PROS 4PROS CPQ 1
Follow PROS Smart CPQ
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.
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 PROS Smart CPQ'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 PROS Smart CPQ, 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 PROS Smart CPQ by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where PROS Smart CPQ 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 PROS Smart CPQ, 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.