| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRM data quality and deduplication | Revenue operations | 0% | 88 of 99 | 43% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by Insycle at 43% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRM data quality | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 12 → 88 of 99 |
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
| 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 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“HubSpot Operations Hub and Salesforce Duplicate Management offer basic deduplication features” Llama 4 Maverick · CRM data quality · direct prompt · alternative
“Native dedupe is also worth using first: Salesforce Duplicate Management” Muse Glimmer 30B · CRM data quality · budget prompt · alternative
“Use Native CRM Tools First (Free) - Salesforce Duplicate Management” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CRM data quality · budget prompt · alternative
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.
“Free but quickly outgrown. Don't rely on it as your long-term solution.” Kimi K2 · CRM data quality · negative prompt · hard negative
“Salesforce-native duplicate rules if you need comprehensive historical or cross-platform cleanup” GPT-6 Luna · CRM data quality · negative prompt · soft negative
“Free/included with subscriptions but limited functionality compared to dedicated tools” Kimi K2 · CRM data quality · comparative 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 15 of the 15 answers that named Salesforce Duplicate Management and are not a share of its labels.
Forty-five of the forty-nine domain citations in answers naming Salesforce Duplicate Management came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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
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 Duplicate Management'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 Duplicate Management, 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 Duplicate Management by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: