GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › UserGems · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

UserGems

15Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

9 of 12Models named it

2Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. UserGems was named 6 times in Intent data and 1 other category, where Bombora led with 35%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business49 of 58

under the label threshold

Mid-market26 of 62

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In intent data · 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 UserGems 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
B2B intent data providers	Sales	0%	26 of 62	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Bombora at 35%
Data enrichment	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	27 of 56	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Apollo.io at 70%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for UserGems 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 UserGems 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	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1
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

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative15 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.

“plus job-change tracking (UserGems/Champify)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Enrichment · comparative prompt · alternative

“Job change/champion tracking → UserGems” Kimi K2 · Intent data · comparative 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 UserGems, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and UserGems was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

6sense13 of 151Not in the top three

Cognism11 of 153Not in the top three

Bombora11 of 151Not in the top three

ZoomInfo10 of 155Not in the top three

Apollo.io10 of 152Not in the top three

Demandbase10 of 151Not in the top three

Clay8 of 151Not in the top three

Amplemarket6 of 152Not in the top three

Champify6 of 150Not in the top three

Lusha6 of 150Not 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 UserGems. 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 1 of the 15 answers that named UserGems and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

6sense.com1

ecosystem.hubspot.com1

knowledge.hubspot.com1

usergems.comYour site1

Three of the four domain citations in answers naming UserGems came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

6sense.com/blog/best-account-based-marketing-platforms1

ecosystem.hubspot.com/marketplace/apps/abm1

ecosystem.hubspot.com/marketplace/apps/apps-for-account-based-marketing1

ecosystem.hubspot.com/marketplace/apps/propensity1

ecosystem.hubspot.com/marketplace/explore/products1

knowledge.hubspot.com/branding/get-started-with-account-based-marketing-in-hubspot1

usergems.com/blog/contact-based-marketing-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 UserGems'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 UserGems, 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 usergems.com 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.