The Brief· September 20→
In one line

Two weeks ago three vendors moved the last human checkpoint to somewhere after the send. Since then it has come back, with Outreach, Pipedrive and ActiveCampaign each putting an approval step in front of the write. Clay and HubSpot handed campaign and sequence creation to code, Apollo and HubSpot taught their APIs to say no, and Pipedrive, Membrain and Close each folded a paid add on into the base plan. Read the issue →

An Independent Reference for Go to Market Software

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.

Last Index UpdateSeptember 21, 2026
Browse the vendor directory →
At a Glance
  • GTM Tech Index is an independent reference grading go to market software vendors (315 indexed) across 17 capability axes in 12 categories.
  • Every record carries a verification date and a source basis. The most recent index update is September 21, 2026.
  • Start with the vendor directory, the methodology, or the change log.
Answers

On the record

Thirteen questions buyers ask about go to market software, answered as counts from the index as of September 5, 2026. Each answer links to the page behind the number.

Which go to market software vendors publish their pricing publicly?

Of the 314 go to market software vendors graded on Commercial Transparency by GTM Tech Index, 77 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 25 percent of the index. Another 112 publish partial pricing, bringing the share with anything checkable to 60 percent, and 77 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 314 vendors GTM Tech Index grades on AI Disclosure and Model Transparency, 47 document which AI models and providers their product runs on at a checkable standard, 15 percent, and 10 do it in full, naming the models, addressing disclosure of AI generated content and explaining the scoring or routing logic. 209 vendors are sold as AI powered with the stack unstated and 58 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 314 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 70 document it, 22 percent. 8 document offboarding in full and 244 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 71 vendors in the AI SDR and outbound agents lane of GTM Tech Index, 16 publish evidence behind their reply rate and meeting claims at a checkable standard, 23 percent, and 1 does so in full. 21 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. 39 of 314 vendors address recipient disclosure in any documented way, 12 percent, 4 of them in full, and 67 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 51 revenue intelligence platforms it covers on whether they publish the evidence behind their forecast accuracy and outcome claims, and 23 do so at a standard a buyer can check, 45 percent. 6 carry an A, the claim published with the method behind it: Clari, DealHub, Gong, GTM Workspace by ZoomInfo, HubSpot Sales Hub and Scratchpad. 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 23 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 314 vendors on Data Licensing and Provenance, whether a provider states where its contact data comes from and under what license. 90 document their sourcing at a checkable standard, 29 percent, 9 in full, and 24 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 61 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 9 document it at a checkable standard. Not one makes disclosure the default. 14 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 27 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 7 publish partial pricing, so 12 carry something checkable, 44 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 108 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. 38 document that at a checkable standard, 35 percent, and 11 do it in full. 55 mention GDPR without saying how they meet it, and 15 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?

Few do. Of the 42 intent and signal providers GTM Tech Index grades, 10 publish a measurement basis behind their accuracy and outcome claims at a standard a buyer can check, 24 percent. 3 carry an A, the claim published with its method: GTM Workspace by ZoomInfo, Nooks and Unify. 7 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 314 go to market software vendors on Security Certifications and Trust Center, whether a buyer can verify a vendor's security posture from the outside. 96 document it at a checkable standard, 31 percent: 23 run a live trust center with current, enumerated certifications such as SOC 2 Type II and visible audit recency, and 73 name their certifications with a gap, such as no trust center or stale dates. 142 claim security in general terms without enumerating anything, and 76 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 314 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. 12 document hosting, regions and the residency options open to EU customers in full, including what is single tenant and what is shared, and 49 document the deployment model with residency options only partly specified, 19 percent of the index between them. 219 say the product is cloud hosted and leave the region question to a sales conversation, and 34 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 →
The Index

Categories

Head to Head

Featured Comparisons

11x vs Artisan

Both sell an autonomous sales development representative with a human first name, priced as a hire rather than a license, and the decision is how much of the machinery each lets you see. Artisan publishes the one control that matters most on this kind of product, an autonomy dial that sets how much of the workflow its agent Ava owns, and then publishes where customers actually set it: more than ninety percent run fully autonomous. It sends from its own infrastructure with warmup and inbox placement testing. 11x sells an outbound agent and a separate voice agent that conducts telephone calls, and publishes nothing on where its email leaves from or what governs any of its three channels. Where each is weakest is the record behind the marketing. A March 2025 investigation reported that companies 11x displayed as customers disputed that description, and the GTM Tech Index grades its outcome evidence D while recording the dispute rather than settling it. Artisan's own chief executive told a technology publication that its Stop Hiring Humans billboards were mostly for attention. Neither names a model, a data source or a certification.

Read full comparison →
Nooks vs Orum

The decision is how much of the outbound motion you want the dialer to own, and how much of the calling law you want it to enforce for you. Both dial several lines at once and bridge a representative into the call a person answers. Nooks wraps that in sequencing, research, list building and coaching, keeps a representative on every conversation by design, and states that do not call rules, calling windows by time zone and local presence are enforced automatically across the United States, Canada and Europe. It publishes a conversion figure verified by a named third party evidence platform, with a link to the record. Orum stays deliberately narrow, a telephone floor with no email, messaging or database, built for dedicated calling teams, with a virtual sales floor for live listening and supervision and up to ten lines on its upper tier. Where each is weakest mirrors that. Orum publishes nothing on register scrubbing, calling windows or recording consent, and its 2022 security announcement described telephony law compliance as roadmap. Nooks names no model behind agents it says are trained on your best representatives.

Read full comparison →
6sense vs Demandbase

These are the two platforms most enterprise account based shortlists start from, and the decision is whether you want agents that write and send or advertising you own end to end. 6sense was founded in 2013 as a predictive engine, sells a patented buying stage prediction built per customer, and runs email agents that create outreach, read responses and reply. It publishes its evidence rather than describing it: the certificate for the international standard for artificial intelligence management systems and the public form of a service organization control type two report covering all five criteria are both open downloads. Demandbase runs its own demand side platform for display, video and connected television aimed at named accounts, which no other major platform in the category operates itself, names its model hosting environment, and publishes its exit terms as numbers. Where each is weakest mirrors that. 6sense markets email that sounds like the customer even when the customer is not writing, and grades D on recipient disclosure. Demandbase does not describe where the records in the data businesses it acquired come from.

Read full comparison →
Editorial Standard

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 →
Questions

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.

Contact us

Found a vendor we missed? Have feedback on the index? We’d love to hear from you.