Index › Products › ValueNavigator · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ValueNavigator

11Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

6 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ValueNavigator was named 7 times in Value selling, where Minoa led with 21%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business42 of 130

under the label threshold

Mid-market19 of 116

under the label threshold

Enterprise56 of 97

under the label threshold

In value selling · 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 ValueNavigator 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	Since September 2026
Value selling tools	Sales	0%	19 of 116	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Minoa at 21%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ValueNavigator yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated ValueNavigator across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	1	3
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	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	1	1	2
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

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.

“Excellent for generating credible, source-backed assumptions and step-by-step buyer business cases.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Value selling · scale prompt · alternative

“Need buyers to co-develop and defend assumptions? Compare ValueNavigator and Cuvama.” GPT-6 Luna · Value selling · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for Simplicity & Visual Impact: ValueNavigator (by ROI Selling)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Value selling · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Best for: Companies wanting a cost-effective, simple solution” MiniMax M2.5 · Value selling · 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 ValueNavigator, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ValueNavigator was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Mediafly Value6 of 110Not among the top eight

The ROI Shop4 of 113Not among the top eight

Cuvama4 of 110Not among the top eight

ValueCore4 of 110Not among the top eight

Minoa3 of 112Not among the top eight

DecisionLink3 of 111Not among the top eight

Ecosystems3 of 111Not among the top eight

Mediafly3 of 110Not among the top eight

Symbe3 of 110Not among the top eight

LeveragePoint2 of 110Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 ValueNavigator. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 11 of the 11 answers that named ValueNavigator and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

roi-selling.com10

theroishop.com6

g2.com5

minoa.io5

mediafly.com4

sourceforge.net4

valueselling.com4

valuevisualizer.com4

cuvama.com3

ecosystems.io3

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

Pages cited

roi-selling.com/6

theroishop.com/4

valuevisualizer.com/articles/best-value-selling-tools4

cuvama.com/solutions/value-case3

g2.com/discussions/which-value-selling-tools-provide-the-strongest-roi-calculator-and-busi3

gartner.com/reviews/market/value-selling3

guideflow.com/blog/value-selling-tools3

roi-calc.com/3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ValueNavigator

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ValueNavigator; a claim can dispute any of them.

ValueNavigator (by ROI Selling) 4ValueNavigator by ROI Selling 2ValueNavigator (ROI Selling) 1

Follow ValueNavigator

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.

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 ValueNavigator'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 ValueNavigator, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for ValueNavigator by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where ValueNavigator is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name ValueNavigator, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.