Every category where a model named Simply.Coach 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
Coaching platforms	Learning and development	0%	21 of 116	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Growthspace at 26%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative16 labels7not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 7 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.

“Best all-around for a solo coach: CoachVantage, Zoee, or Simply.Coach.” GPT-5.4 mini · Coaching platforms · comparative prompt · first choice

“Simply.Coach is the strongest fit for multi-coach firms, enterprise L&D teams, universities” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Coaching platforms · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for: Budget-conscious coaches or teams needing mobile apps and scalability” Grok 4.1 Fast · Coaching platforms · comparative prompt · alternative

“Choose Simply.Coach if you need a budget-friendly administrative hub” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Coaching platforms · budget 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Simply.Coach, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Simply.Coach was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CoachHub13 of 200Not in the top three

BetterUp12 of 203Not in the top three

Paperbell12 of 202Not in the top three

CoachAccountable10 of 201Not in the top three

CoachVantage10 of 200Not in the top three

Boon Health8 of 201Not in the top three

UpCoach8 of 200Not in the top three

Delenta7 of 201Not in the top three

Risely6 of 202Not in the top three

Growthspace6 of 200Not 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 Simply.Coach. 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 15 of the 20 answers that named Simply.Coach and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

boon-health.com9

circle.so9

coachilly.com8

coachstackhub.ai7

delenta.com7

360learning.com6

ezycourse.com6

group.app6

torch.io6

simply.coachYour site5

Sixty-four of the sixty-nine domain citations in answers naming Simply.Coach came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

boon-health.com/learn/resources/best-enterprise-coaching-platforms9

circle.so/blog/best-coaching-platforms9

coachilly.com/coaching-software-review-20268

delenta.com/blog/coaching-support-platforms7

360learning.com/blog/online-coaching-platforms6

ezycourse.com/blog/best-group-coaching-platforms6

group.app/blog/online-coaching-platform6

torch.io/compare6

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 Simply.Coach'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 Simply.Coach, 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 simply.coach 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.