VendorCensus
Menu

Competitive intelligence dashboard: inspect a real sample

Explore fixed ATS, AI, and CRM competitor sets. Filter the evidence, compare company overlap, and inspect source coverage in a working dashboard.

Reviewed coverage sample · source reviews to (UTC)

Real public-source records, manually reviewed. This is a dated snapshot, not a continuous live feed or a representative market survey.

Working sample dashboard

From a headline to its evidence

Choose a fixed competitor set and inspect what the covered sources support.

3 companies

Distinct domains in this selection.

3 public sources

Source URLs deduplicated across vendors.

Switches unavailable

No comparable historical customer panel.

Observed provider coverage

Shares use 3 covered companies; overlap can push the total above 100%.

Source mix

Distinct source URLs per source type, not a confidence score.

Subprocessor disclosure3

Review timeline

Evidence checked on each date. This is not an adoption trend.

8 records reviewed

Trend and net movement unavailable. Different review dates cannot substitute for a repeated company panel.

Company overlap across the competitor set

Shared observed domains; source scope and publication periods may differ.
ProviderOpenAIAnthropicCohereFireworks AI
OpenAI3 observed311
Anthropic33 observed11
Cohere111 observed1
Fireworks AI1111 observed

8 records · Source and industry filters apply to every dashboard panel; clicking a provider narrows this evidence table.

Public-source observations. Observation dates are review dates, not adoption dates.
CompanyVendor / signalIndustry / scopeObserved (UTC)Evidence
Intercomintercom.comOpenAIPresence observedCustomer service softwareAI processingSubprocessor disclosure
Evidence notes

The published subprocessor list names this provider for the stated processing purpose.

Intercomintercom.comAnthropicPresence observedCustomer service softwareAI processingSubprocessor disclosure
Evidence notes

The published subprocessor list names this provider for the stated processing purpose.

Linearlinear.appOpenAIPresence observedDeveloper toolsAI processingSubprocessor disclosure
Evidence notes

The published subprocessor list names this provider for the stated processing purpose.

Linearlinear.appAnthropicPresence observedDeveloper toolsAI processingSubprocessor disclosure
Evidence notes

The published subprocessor list names this provider for the stated processing purpose.

Sentrysentry.ioOpenAIPresence observedDeveloper toolsAI processingSubprocessor disclosure
Evidence notes

The published subprocessor list names this provider for the stated processing purpose.

Sentrysentry.ioAnthropicPresence observedDeveloper toolsAI processingSubprocessor disclosure
Evidence notes

The published subprocessor list names this provider for the stated processing purpose.

Linearlinear.appCoherePresence observedDeveloper toolsArtificial intelligenceSubprocessor disclosure
Evidence notes

The company’s published subprocessor disclosure names this provider for the stated purpose.

Linearlinear.appFireworks AIPresence observedDeveloper toolsArtificial intelligenceSubprocessor disclosure
Evidence notes

The company’s published subprocessor disclosure names this provider for the stated purpose.

Turn an observation into a decision brief in the competitive analysis canvas, or inspect the procurement review workflow.

A dashboard should answer a decision

Choose a competitor set, define the industry segment, and inspect the denominator before comparing vendors. The dashboard keeps the evidence table beside the counts so you can trace an aggregate back to its sources.

The fixed sets are a demonstration of our reviewed coverage. They are not a comprehensive competitor landscape or a prediction of commercial performance.

Trends, switches, and co-observation

The timeline groups reviews by date. It shows when evidence was checked, not changes in adoption over time. A genuine adoption trend needs comparable observations for the same population at multiple points.

Company overlap counts the same normalized domain on both sides. Two sources with different publication periods or business scopes do not establish simultaneous deployment. Switching and net movement stay unavailable without adequate historical evidence.

A CEO or market intelligence view

Use the source mix to challenge a headline before acting on it. Customer stories are selected by vendors; processor lists have a different purpose and coverage. Neither is a representative customer survey.

For a decision brief, take the relevant source into the analysis canvas, write the interpretation separately, and identify the next question to resolve.

Explore related research

What the evidence can tell you

A public job board supports an ATS observation. A subprocessor disclosure identifies a provider that may process data for particular services. A vendor customer story describes a published relationship. These sources have different scopes and are labeled separately.

Counts cover the records on these pages, not the whole market. No observation in our covered sources does not mean a company does not use a vendor. Source recency and unresolved conflicts affect confidence; observations do not establish spend, renewal timing, or customer churn.

Read our methodology · Understand coverage

Start with the evidence.

Create a free VendorCensus account. The public research above is available without signing in.

Create a free account