ZoomInfo

Named in 31 judge labels across 2 categories by 6 of 6 models in the September 2026 Edition. 1 first choice, 11 negative labels. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-08.5.

Best standing

4% in Intent data

Rank 8 of 40 products named in b2b intent data providers, criticized challenger. 1 of 6 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 36% of its 22 labels there were negative.

Standing by category

Every category where a model named ZoomInfo. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Vertical	First choices	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
B2B intent data providers	Sales	4%	8 of 40	36%	22	criticized challenger
Sales engagement platforms	Sales	0%	30 of 32	33%	9	under 10 labels

By model

How each model treated ZoomInfo across every prompt where it was named. Six models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Opus 5	0	0	3	3	6
Claude Opus 4.8	1	1	2	3	7
GPT-6 Astra	0	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.6 Sol	0	2	1	2	5
Gemini 3.1 Pro	0	2	4	3	9
Perplexity Sonar Pro	0	2	1	0	3

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“ZoomInfo if you need contact data *plus* intent and want to consolidate vendors and control cost, or” Claude Opus 4.8 · Intent data · direct prompt · first choice

“If you need contact data more than pure intent, ZoomInfo or Cognism are better fits” Perplexity Sonar Pro · Intent data · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“ZoomInfo (SalesOS): If you have a larger budget, ZoomInfo is the enterprise standard.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Intent data · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Choose Apollo, Cognism, or ZoomInfo if you have a lean SDR team” Gemini 3.1 Pro · 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.

“Massive privacy lawsuits, aggressive contracts, and data-hostage tactics.” Gemini 3.1 Pro · Intent data · negative prompt · hard negative

“it's not a reason to never use ZoomInfo — it's widely used and the contact data is genuinely strong. But ... "our vendor is repeatedly sued over consent" is a real procurement risk.” Claude Opus 5 · Intent data · negative prompt · soft negative

“priced for teams that already have an SDR function... low-tier packages give you account-level "surges" with no contact-level detail” Claude Opus 5 · Intent data · budget prompt · soft negative

“Database + engagement combos (Apollo, ZoomInfo): Great value/reach but the most billing/cancellation and data-accuracy complaints.” Claude Opus 4.8 · Sales engagement · negative prompt · soft negative

Names read as ZoomInfo

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

ZoomInfo Sales 1ZoomInfo/Intent 1ZoomInfo’s engagement bundle 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page gets a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as ZoomInfo, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a logo and one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or quadrants, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. Sponsorship is separate: a sponsor funds categories or buyer dimensions and is named on what it funded, and the rules are the same for every sponsor.