Every category where a model named Visdum 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
Sales commissions and incentive compensation	Revenue operations	2%	8 of 51	9%	23	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	2	1	0	3
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	1	1	4
Mistral Small	0	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	2	0	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	2	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	1	2	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	0	1

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

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase9 labels2

Comparative15 labelsNone

Budget-constrained8 labels1

Scale-constrained8 labels1

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative53 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 4 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.

“Visdum is the strongest pick for a tight budget ... start with Visdum” GPT-5.4 mini · Commissions · budget prompt · first choice

“Visdum if finance-led operations and ASC 606 / audit-ready reporting are especially important” Perplexity Sonar · Commissions · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Visdum is a strong fit for high-growth mid-market businesses with complex commission structures” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Commissions · direct prompt · alternative

“Consider modern alternatives like Everstage, QuotaPath, or Visdum instead.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Commissions · negative 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.

“What to Avoid on a Budget - Visdum, CaptivateIQ, Performio” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Commissions · budget prompt · hard negative

“Higher entry (~$6K/year min); custom setup fee.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Commissions · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Visdum, over the 53 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Visdum was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CaptivateIQ41 of 536Not in the top three

QuotaPath40 of 5322Not in the top three

Qobra36 of 535Not in the top three

Salesforce Spiff34 of 530Not in the top three

Everstage32 of 537Not in the top three

Commissionly23 of 535Not in the top three

Performio20 of 531Not in the top three

Xactly19 of 530Not in the top three

Xactly Incent13 of 530Not in the top three

EasyComp11 of 530Not 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 Visdum. 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 12 of the 53 answers that named Visdum and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

captivateiq.com7

learn.g2.com7

qobra.co7

everstage.com6

visdum.comYour site6

forma.ai5

guideflow.com5

quotapath.com5

technologyadvice.com5

getcentify.com4

Fifty-one of the fifty-seven domain citations in answers naming Visdum came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

learn.g2.com/best-sales-compensation-software7

qobra.co/blog/top-sales-commission-tools5

everstage.com/10-best-sales-commission-software4

forma.ai/resources/article/commissions-software4

getcentify.com/best-sales-commission-software4

captivateiq.com/blog/best-sales-compensation-software3

captivateiq.com/blog/incentive-compensation-management-software3

cmsreport.com/articles/top-8-sales-commission-management-software-2026-181513

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 Visdum'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 Visdum, 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 visdum.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.