| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value selling tools | Sales | 0% | 114 of 116 | 100% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Minoa at 21% | |
| Client onboarding platforms | Customer | 0% | 92 of 104 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Rocketlane at 47% | |
| Pricing optimization | Revenue operations | 0% | 62 of 76 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Pricefx at 53% | |
| Proposal software | Revenue operations | 0% | 55 of 56 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by PandaDoc at 65% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Territory and quota planning | Revenue operations | 0% | 101 of 123 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by CaptivateIQ Planning at 36% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
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.
“Examples: Salesforce CPQ, Oracle NetSuite, SAP. * Why to avoid: These tools are incredibly powerful but notoriously difficult to configure.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Proposals · negative prompt · hard negative
“CPQ (Configure, Price, Quote) tools like DealHub, Salesforce CPQ, and Conga ... do not directly support the core functions of value selling” Mistral Small · Value selling · negative prompt · soft negative
“Handle pricing logic and contract generation, not value quantification” MiniMax M2.5 · Value selling · negative prompt · soft negative
“Enterprise uses expensive Salesforce CPQ or heavy consulting tools” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Client onboarding · direct prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 16 of the 25 answers that named Salesforce CPQ and are not a share of its labels.
Forty-seven of the forty-seven domain citations in answers naming Salesforce CPQ came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
Fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · LinkedIn · Crunchbase
What Salesforce CPQ's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: salesforce.com/sales/cpq, salesforce.com/crm/salesforce-competition, salesforce.com/crm/salesforce-alternatives, salesforce.com/platform/salesforce-developer, salesforce.com/campaign/launching-epic-salesforce-implementations. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Salesforce 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 Salesforce CPQ, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Salesforce CPQ by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: