The CRM started keeping receipts for its robots, with Gainsight and Attio logging every tool call an agent makes. Instantly and Aircall gave the AI SDR a phone, a skill some human SDRs have spent years politely avoiding. And QuickProsp will now tell you a merge tag is empty before you send Hi there to three thousand people. 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.
- GTM Tech Index is an independent reference grading go to market software vendors (338 indexed) across 17 capability axes in 12 categories.
- Every record carries a verification date and a source basis. The most recent index update is October 14, 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 October 14, 2026. Each answer links to the page behind the number.
Which go to market software vendors publish their pricing publicly?
Of the 338 go to market software vendors graded on Commercial Transparency by GTM Tech Index, 84 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 129 publish partial pricing, bringing the share with anything checkable to 63 percent, and 67 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 338 vendors GTM Tech Index grades on AI Disclosure and Model Transparency, 68 document which AI models and providers their product runs on at a checkable standard, 20 percent, and 10 do it in full, naming the models, addressing disclosure of AI generated content and explaining the scoring or routing logic. 213 vendors are sold as AI powered with the stack unstated and 57 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 338 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 102 document it, 30 percent. 8 document offboarding in full and 236 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 73 vendors in the AI SDR and outbound agents lane of GTM Tech Index, 17 publish evidence behind their reply rate and meeting claims at a checkable standard, 23 percent, and 1 does so in full. 22 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. 48 of 338 vendors address recipient disclosure in any documented way, 14 percent, 4 of them in full, and 66 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 25 do so at a standard a buyer can check, 49 percent. 6 carry an A, the claim published with the method behind it: Clari Forecast, 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 25 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 338 vendors on Data Licensing and Provenance, whether a provider states where its contact data comes from and under what license. 118 document their sourcing at a checkable standard, 35 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 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 10 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 28 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 8 publish partial pricing, so 13 carry something checkable, 46 percent, and 6 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 111 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. 43 document that at a checkable standard, 39 percent, and 12 do it in full. 54 mention GDPR without saying how they meet it, and 14 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 43 intent and signal providers GTM Tech Index grades, 11 publish a measurement basis behind their accuracy and outcome claims at a standard a buyer can check, 26 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 338 go to market software vendors on Security Certifications and Trust Center, whether a buyer can verify a vendor's security posture from the outside. 126 document it at a checkable standard, 37 percent: 23 run a live trust center with current, enumerated certifications such as SOC 2 Type II and visible audit recency, and 103 name their certifications with a gap, such as no trust center or stale dates. 137 claim security in general terms without enumerating anything, and 75 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 338 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. 14 document hosting, regions and the residency options open to EU customers in full, including what is single tenant and what is shared, and 73 document the deployment model with residency options only partly specified, 26 percent of the index between them. 218 say the product is cloud hosted and leave the region question to a sales conversation, and 33 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
Both run LinkedIn outreach from the vendor's servers with a dedicated IP per account, one LinkedIn account per seat and email steps in the same sequence, so the choice turns on price shape, paperwork and how each treats LinkedIn's limits. Dripify sells Pro at $59 and Advanced at $79 a seat a month on annual billing, includes 100 email finder credits a month, and caps activity at up to 75 connection requests a day. Expandi sells one Business plan at $79 a seat on annual billing or $99 monthly, quotes agencies from ten seats with a white label option, and charges separately for image and video personalization through partners. Its pricing page also lists a Mobile Connector campaign that sends up to 100 extra connection requests a week beyond its standard limits. Expandi publishes the stronger privacy instrument, an open signed data processing agreement with retention periods in months, while Dripify defines every metered unit on its pricing page. Neither publishes a security certification.
Both run LinkedIn and email sequences from a seller's own accounts on the vendor's servers, and they part ways on what happens after a reply and how the bill is built. Dripify keeps the product to sequences, a shared inbox, an email finder and pacing controls that cap LinkedIn activity at up to 75 connection requests a day, priced at $59 or $79 a seat a month on annual billing, with seats, sending and finder credits all defined on the pricing page. Skylead branches sequences on what each lead did, syncs replies and lead status both ways with HubSpot, Pipedrive and Salesforce, and adds an AI SDR that answers prospects in automatic or semi automatic mode, at $100 a seat, with agency plans at $999 for 25 seats as a first year promotion. Its enrichment and AI SDR add ons carry no price. Both automate LinkedIn without any arrangement with the network. Dripify suits a seller who wants a predictable bill; Skylead suits an agency or a team feeding a CRM.
Both are outbound dialers for teams calling the United States and Canada, and both build calling rules into the product. They differ in where the work lives. Aloware sits inside the CRM: reps power dial one contact at a time from HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive or Zoho lists, texts and calls share an inbox, and transcripts and summaries return to the record. Readymode is a calling floor with its own built in CRM, predictive, progressive, power and preview modes, live listen, whisper and interject for supervisors, and dynamic scripts. Readymode bundles 30 or 75 phone numbers into each license at $199 or $249 a month on annual billing and sells from a single license, while Aloware charges $30, $60 or $85 a user with 10 or 5 user minimums and bills numbers separately. Number reputation tools sit in Readymode's iQ plan and among Aloware's add ons. A sales team working its CRM leans Aloware; a call center running agents on pace leans Readymode.
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.