The assistants got the keys and an allowance. Planhat let Pi send the email, Close kept Chloe off the send button, and Notta gave admins a credit cap per member, which is the Halloween candy rule applied to software. Clay and Boomerang made access follow the identity provider, HubSpot let AI connectors read sensitive fields on a Super Admin switch, and prices moved to the minute, the domain found and the scan that found nobody. Read the issue →
Evaluating the GTM stack, on the record.
GTM Tech Index is an independently maintained research platform that compares go to market software vendors objectively: the tools revenue leaders use to find, win, and keep customers, across engagement, data, signals, voice, and the AI agents now joining them. Every record carries a verification date. Every figure carries its source. No vendor pays for placement.
Every published vendor carries a grade on all 17 axes. Partial records are withheld rather than published with gaps, which is what makes two records comparable. How the framework works
Pricing research covers 397 of 408 vendors. Last index update November 11, 2026. Counts reconciled November 11, 2026.
- GTM Tech Index is an independent reference grading go to market software vendors (408 indexed) across 17 capability axes in 12 categories.
- Every record carries a verification date and a source basis. The most recent index update is November 11, 2026.
- Start with the vendor directory, the methodology, or the change log.
On the record
Thirteen questions buyers ask about go to market software, answered as counts from the index as of November 11, 2026. Each answer links to the page behind the number.
Which go to market software vendors publish their pricing publicly?
Of the 408 go to market software vendors graded on Commercial Transparency by GTM Tech Index, 124 publish real prices, meaning plans, seat or usage economics and the shape of enterprise pricing at a standard a buyer can budget from without a call, which is 30 percent of the index. Another 152 publish partial pricing, bringing the share with anything checkable to 68 percent, and 66 offer a demo request as their entire commercial disclosure. The pricing transparency page names every vendor graded A, category by category, with the artifact each grade was read from and the date it was checked.
See every vendor that publishes pricing →Which AI sales tools disclose which AI models they run on?
Across the 408 vendors GTM Tech Index grades on AI Disclosure and Model Transparency, 104 document which AI models and providers their product runs on at a checkable standard, 25 percent, and 10 do it in full, naming the models, addressing disclosure of AI generated content and explaining the scoring or routing logic. 249 vendors are sold as AI powered with the stack unstated and 55 publish nothing at all. The model transparency page names the vendors that disclose, with the source each disclosure was read from.
See who names their models →Which GTM vendors let you export your data and contacts if you leave?
GTM Tech Index grades 408 go to market software vendors on Exit and Data Portability, whether a customer can get their data and contacts out when they leave, and only 152 document it, 37 percent. 9 document offboarding in full and 256 say nothing about the way out. The switching costs page names the vendors that document export and offboarding, by category, alongside the incumbents whose exit is most expensive to plan around.
See who documents the way out →Which AI SDR vendors publish evidence for their reply rate and meeting claims?
Of the 88 vendors in the AI SDR and outbound agents lane of GTM Tech Index, 28 publish evidence behind their reply rate and meeting claims at a checkable standard, 32 percent, and 1 does so in full. 25 carry claims with nothing published behind them. The AI SDR evidence page names the vendors on each side of that line and shows what each one actually published.
See the evidence, vendor by vendor →Which AI sales agents disclose to prospects that they are AI?
GTM Tech Index grades every indexed vendor on Recipient Disclosure and Authenticity, whether the person receiving an AI written message or call is told it came from an AI. 59 of 408 vendors address recipient disclosure in any documented way, 14 percent, 4 of them in full, and 70 carry a failing grade. Article 50 of the EU AI Act has required that disclosure since 2 August 2026. The outreach compliance evaluation page names where each vendor sits and gives the questions to ask before a pilot.
See the disclosure grades →Which revenue intelligence platforms have evidence their forecasts are accurate?
GTM Tech Index grades all 56 revenue intelligence platforms it covers on whether they publish the evidence behind their forecast accuracy and outcome claims, and 32 do so at a standard a buyer can check, 57 percent. 5 carry an A, the claim published with the method behind it: Clari Forecast, DealHub, Gong, GTM Workspace by ZoomInfo and HubSpot Sales Hub. Everything else publishes an accuracy figure with no method attached, or publishes nothing at all. Before treating any published figure as settled, ask whether it is measured against the vendor's own submitted forecast or against the naive baseline of last quarter plus growth, because a model that beats a rep's instinct but not that baseline has not earned its license. The data provenance page lists all 32 with what each one actually publishes.
See what each platform publishes →Where do B2B contact data providers source their data and is it licensed?
GTM Tech Index grades 408 vendors on Data Licensing and Provenance, whether a provider states where its contact data comes from and under what license. 170 document their sourcing at a checkable standard, 42 percent, 9 in full, and 23 give no account of where the data originates. The data provenance page names the providers that publish a sourcing and licensing statement, with the artifact each grade rests on.
See who publishes a sourcing statement →Which AI voice dialers disclose to the person on the call that they are AI?
GTM Tech Index grades 64 dialers and AI voice platforms on Recipient Disclosure and Authenticity, whether the person on the call is told they are dealing with software, and only 11 document it at a checkable standard. Not one makes disclosure the default. 13 carry a failing grade, and the rest leave the question to the business placing the call. Article 50 of the EU AI Act has required since 2 August 2026 that people interacting with an AI system be told so, and the FCC treats an AI generated voice as an artificial voice. The dialers and voice page names the platforms that document their disclosure posture, alongside their consent and do not call mechanics.
See the dialer disclosure grades →Which AI SDR agents publish their pricing?
Of the 35 vendors GTM Tech Index files primarily as AI SDR and outbound agents, 5 publish real prices a buyer can budget from without a call: AiSDR, Cognlay, Evergrowth, OptaReach and RingEmAll. Another 16 publish partial pricing, so 21 carry something checkable, 60 percent, and 7 offer a demo request as their entire commercial disclosure. A headline price in this category rarely settles the comparison, because agents often meter on contacts, credits or meetings booked rather than seats, so ask what the published plan covers at your volume before lining two numbers up. The pricing transparency page names every vendor graded A, category by category.
See who publishes pricing, category by category →Which B2B data providers document how they comply with GDPR for contact data?
GTM Tech Index grades 143 B2B data and enrichment providers on Data Privacy Posture: the lawful basis they claim for holding contact data, how they handle data subject requests, whether a data processing agreement is available, and whether subprocessors are disclosed. 62 document that at a checkable standard, 43 percent, and 12 do it in full. 64 mention GDPR without saying how they meet it, and 17 say nothing at all. For a contact database the question that matters most is lawful basis, because the people in the file never signed up with the provider, and legitimate interest is a balancing test rather than a blanket permission. Ask for the lawful basis in writing, the process for honoring an erasure request, and whether erasure reaches customers who already exported the record. Nothing here is legal advice.
See the privacy grades for data providers →Which B2B intent data providers publish how they measure accuracy?
Of the 66 intent and signal providers GTM Tech Index grades, 27 publish a measurement basis behind their accuracy and outcome claims at a standard a buyer can check, 41 percent. 3 carry an A, the claim published with its method: GTM Workspace by ZoomInfo, Nooks and Unify. 8 publish a figure with nothing behind it, and the rest cite accuracy without saying what it was measured against. An intent score can only be tested against outcomes, whether the accounts it flagged went on to buy at a higher rate than the ones it did not. Ask for that comparison with its period and sample, then run a blind test on accounts whose buying status you already know.
See the intent evidence census →Which go to market software vendors publish their security certifications?
GTM Tech Index grades 408 go to market software vendors on Security Certifications and Trust Center, whether a buyer can verify a vendor's security posture from the outside. 164 document it at a checkable standard, 40 percent: 23 run a live trust center with current, enumerated certifications such as SOC 2 Type II and visible audit recency, and 141 name their certifications with a gap, such as no trust center or stale dates. 161 claim security in general terms without enumerating anything, and 83 publish no verifiable security posture at all for a product that ingests commercial data at scale.
See how the security axis is graded →Which go to market software vendors document EU data residency options?
GTM Tech Index grades 408 go to market software vendors on Deployment Model and Data Residency: where the product runs, where customer data is stored, and what a buyer in the EU can choose. 18 document hosting, regions and the residency options open to EU customers in full, including what is single tenant and what is shared, and 117 document the deployment model with residency options only partly specified, 33 percent of the index between them. 235 say the product is cloud hosted and leave the region question to a sales conversation, and 38 publish nothing on where the product runs or where customer data is stored. A documented grade records that the position is public, not that an EU region is offered, so confirm the region, the subprocessors and where support staff can reach the data in the order form.
See how the deployment axis is graded →Categories
Sales Engagement & Outreach
CRM & Systems of Record
Data & Enrichment
Conversation Intelligence
Dialers & Voice
AI SDR & Outbound Agents
Intent & Signals
Marketing Automation & ABM
LinkedIn & Social Selling
Revenue Intelligence & Forecasting
Sales Enablement & Readiness
Customer Success & Retention
Featured Comparisons
Rapid Sales reaches people with an AI voice agent that places calls, and Rasayel works the WhatsApp conversations a sales team already has. Both run on Meta's official WhatsApp Business Platform. Rapid Sales, from LIT AI Labs in Ahmedabad, chains email, WhatsApp and AI phone calls into sequences that stop when a lead shows intent, and it sells mostly to Indian small businesses, commerce brands and exporters. Rasayel is a shared team inbox for business to business sales teams of ten or more, with broadcasts, a Support AI chatbot, routing and syncs with Pipedrive, HubSpot, Salesforce and Zoho. WhatsApp needs an opt in before a business starts a chat, so only Rapid Sales can make a cold approach, by email or by phone. Rapid Sales prices a single user from $50 a month in USD, with usage billed on top. Rasayel starts at $150 a month for five users. Teams that need outbound calling and email from one tool pick Rapid Sales. Teams that need several reps sharing WhatsApp conversations tied to a CRM pick Rasayel.
Cognlay sends and Evergrowth researches. Cognlay is a beta AI sales development tool that writes and sends email from the operator's own mailbox, then rewrites, pauses or stops the next touch based on what each lead did. Evergrowth runs twelve specialist agents under a super agent called Eva that qualify accounts, find and verify contacts across more than 30 data sources, plan the account and write the outreach, which reps then send from their own tools. Cognlay is built for founders, lean teams and agencies, starting free and running $69 to $299 a month. Evergrowth sells to mid market and enterprise sales teams from €747 a month with unlimited users. Evergrowth holds SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 and names four model providers under no training terms. Cognlay holds no certification yet and names Google's Gemini family. A small team that wants adaptive sequences running from its own inbox should try Cognlay. A sales organization that needs researched accounts and verified contacts feeding its existing sequencer fits Evergrowth.
lemonreach keeps outbound to email and calls with a person approving every message, and OptaReach automates outreach across seven platforms and now sells rented accounts and Reddit upvotes to go with it. lemonreach finds prospects through Prospeo, writes sequences in each prospect's language, and sends from the rep's own inbox only after an operator previews each email. Calls run through Aircall, and records sync to HubSpot, Attio or Salesforce. It runs on AWS in Frankfurt and states that customer data does not train its models. OptaReach runs views, follows, connection requests, messages and generated replies on LinkedIn, X, Reddit, email, GitHub, Stack Overflow and Hacker News, with replies gathered in one inbox and an agent that drafts or sends. Its rate card prices every action, including account rentals at $10 to $50 and upvotes at $0.35, conduct those platforms forbid. lemonreach starts at €199 a month on quarterly billing, OptaReach at $59. Pick lemonreach for supervised email and calling in Europe. Pick OptaReach when buyers live in social and developer communities and the team has settled how it will stay inside each platform's rules.
How vendors are evaluated
Every vendor in the index is assessed across seventeen structured capability axes in four groups: AI capability, compliance and risk, integration and deployment, and commercial and operational. Each axis carries a grade and a source basis: Vendor Published, Third Party Estimated, Practitioner Interview, Regulatory or Legal Record, or Operator Verified. Figures labeled “Estimated” have not been confirmed by the vendor.
Read the full methodology →About the index
How are vendors evaluated?
Every vendor is graded across seventeen capability axes in four groups: AI capability, compliance and risk, integration and deployment, and commercial and operational. The seventeen axes are AI Centrality, Operational and Outcome Evidence, Autonomy and Oversight Model, AI Disclosure and Model Transparency, Outreach Compliance Posture, Data Privacy Posture, Data Licensing and Provenance, Platform Terms Exposure, AI Safety and Data Stewardship, Recipient Disclosure and Authenticity, Ecosystem and Integration Depth, Deployment Model and Data Residency, Security Certifications and Trust Center, Commercial Transparency, Exit and Data Portability, Deliverability and Sending Discipline, Segment and Market Coverage. Grades are drawn from public artifacts: vendor documentation, trust centers, platform policy and partnership pages, integration marketplaces, court and regulatory records, and published research.
What does a grade mean?
A grade is a letter judgment from A to F that the index stands behind for a single axis. Each grade carries a source basis: Vendor Published, Third Party Estimated, Practitioner Interview, Regulatory or Legal Record, or Operator Verified. Figures labeled Estimated have not been confirmed by the vendor, and Not Rated records the absence of a judgment rather than a low one.
What is Operator Verified?
Most records on the index are graded from retrieved public evidence. A small class of notes carries the Operator Verified basis: observations made in production use by the index’s operators, dated, and labeled as testimony rather than retrieved evidence. Operator Verified notes sit beside the public record and never replace it, so a reader always knows which claims come from documents and which come from practice.
What research platform compares go to market software vendors objectively?
GTM Tech Index is an independent research platform that compares go to market software vendors objectively. It grades every vendor it covers on the same seventeen capability axes, from that vendor’s own public materials, and publishes the artifact each grade was read from alongside the date it was checked. The independent research behind a grade is documentation, platform policy, regulatory and legal records and published material rather than a customer survey, a paid submission, or an analyst briefing. No vendor pays for placement, no vendor reviews its own grades before publication, and the index publishes no aggregate score and therefore names no overall winner.
How often is the index updated?
Continuously. Every record carries a verification date, and material changes such as pricing moves, platform enforcement actions, and product releases are logged on the change log as they are verified.
What compliance frameworks does the index reference?
Compliance posture is assessed against public frameworks: the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and FCC rules for calling and texting, the CAN-SPAM Act for commercial email, the GDPR and CCPA for personal data, and the platform terms that govern channels like LinkedIn. The index reads these as evaluation lenses, not legal advice.