| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead routing and management | Sales | 2% | 9 of 111 | 43% | 14 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead routing | 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 20 → 9 of 111 |
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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“If you use Salesforce, test whether its assignment rules and automation cover your actual cases” GPT-6 Luna · Lead routing · scale prompt · first choice
“native workflows inside HubSpot or Salesforce are the right place to start since round robin and field-based logic are already built in” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Lead routing · comparative prompt · alternative
“The built-in starting point for assigning leads to users or queues... more intricate routing can require custom workflows or code.” GPT-6 Luna · Lead routing · comparative prompt · alternative
“Most modern CRMs (like HubSpot or Salesforce) have native assignment features that can handle basic routing needs” Mistral Small · Lead routing · negative 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.
“Your CRM’s native routing (like Salesforce Assignment Rules or HubSpot Workflows) distributes leads sequentially but lacks the intelligence required for a scale-up.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Lead routing · scale prompt · soft negative
“Limitation: Limited to simple property-based assignment; no availability checking; no deduplication before assignment” Kimi K2 · Lead routing · comparative prompt · soft negative
“Powerful but steep learning curve... is overkill/expensive for most mid-market unless you have dedicated admins.” Grok 4.20 · Lead routing · direct prompt · soft negative
“Salesforce - considered over-engineered for small businesses with simple needs.” Llama 4 Maverick · Lead routing · negative 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 60 of the 62 answers that named Salesforce Lead Assignment Rules and are not a share of its labels.
174 of the 174 domain citations in answers naming Salesforce Lead Assignment Rules 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 Lead Assignment Rules's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: salesforce.com/sales/engagement-platform/ai-lead-nurturing, salesforce.com/sales/engagement-platform/automated-lead-nurturing, salesforce.com/resources/articles/lead-to-order-automation-communications-providers-form, salesforce.com/jp/mulesoft/automation/what-is-business-flow, salesforce.com/ca/sales/engagement-platform/automated-lead-nurturing. 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 Lead Assignment Rules'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 Lead Assignment Rules, 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 Lead Assignment Rules by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: