GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › Vendavo · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Vendavo

5Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

5 of 12Models named it

1Category

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

Standing

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Vendavo was named 1 time in CPQ, where DealHub led with 62%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business65 of 71

under the label threshold

Mid-market44 of 73

under the label threshold

Enterprise59 of 60

under the label threshold

In cpq · 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 Vendavo 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
CPQ	Revenue operations	0%	44 of 73	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by DealHub at 62%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Vendavo 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 Vendavo across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 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.

“commonly used when price optimization and margin protection are central” GPT-5.4 mini · CPQ · 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 Vendavo, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Vendavo was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Oracle CPQ5 of 50Not in the top three

SAP CPQ5 of 50Not in the top three

Salesforce CPQ4 of 50Not in the top three

DealHub3 of 51Not in the top three

Conga CPQ3 of 50Not in the top three

PROS2 of 50Not in the top three

Zuora CPQ2 of 50Not in the top three

HubSpot Commerce Hub1 of 51Not in the top three

PandaDoc1 of 51Not in the top three

Salesforce Revenue Cloud1 of 51Not 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 Vendavo. 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 2 of the 5 answers that named Vendavo and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

blog.alguna.com1

canvaslogic.com1

cincom.com1

configureone.com1

conga.com1

dealhub.io1

dgt27.com1

docs.oracle.com1

getapp.com1

guideflow.com1

Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming Vendavo came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

blog.alguna.com/best-cpq-software1

canvaslogic.com/best-cpq-software-for-enterprise1

cincom.com/blog/cpq/best-cpq-tools1

configureone.com/blog/smart-manufacturing-2026-cpq1

conga.com/press/conga-recognized-2026-gartner-magic-quadrant-configure-price-and-quote-app1

conga.com/salesforce1

dealhub.io/blog/cpq/best-cpq-software-20261

dgt27.com/blog/best-cpq-software-platforms1

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 Vendavo'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 Vendavo, 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 vendavo.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.