Index › Vendors › ReferenceEdge · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ReferenceEdge

11Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

9 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ReferenceEdge was named 2 times in Loyalty, where Smile.io led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business50 of 119

under the label threshold

Mid-market54 of 124

under the label threshold

Enterprise22 of 114

under the label threshold

In loyalty · 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 ReferenceEdge 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
Loyalty, advocacy and referrals	Marketing	0%	54 of 124	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Smile.io at 24%

Movement

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative11 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.

“G2 also highlights Orca and ReferenceEdge for customer reference and advocacy workflows” GPT-5.4 mini · Loyalty · paraphrase 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 ReferenceEdge, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ReferenceEdge was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Influitive11 of 113Not in the top three

Extole8 of 113Not in the top three

Base.ai5 of 113Not in the top three

Referral Factory5 of 111Not in the top three

Higher Logic5 of 110Not in the top three

Base4 of 111Not in the top three

SlapFive4 of 110Not in the top three

Upland RO Innovation4 of 110Not in the top three

Referral Rock3 of 111Not in the top three

Ambassador3 of 110Not 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 ReferenceEdge. 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 3 of the 11 answers that named ReferenceEdge and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

blog.hubspot.com2

checkthat.ai2

customergauge.com2

openloyalty.io2

base.ai1

capterra.com1

cello.so1

deeto.com1

extole.com1

f6s.com1

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

Pages cited

blog.hubspot.com/service/customer-advocacy-platforms2

checkthat.ai/answers/what-are-the-best-customer-advocacy-program-tools2

customergauge.com/blog/b2b-referral-software2

openloyalty.io/insider/best-referral-software2

base.ai/blog/customer-advocacy-software-enterprise-b2b1

capterra.com/referral-software1

cello.so/7-best-b2b-referral-software-2026-guide1

checkthat.ai/answers/what-are-the-best-customer-reference-software-tools1

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 ReferenceEdge'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 ReferenceEdge, 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.