Build a living competitor-comparison table inside a Space instead of a one-off answer

This question is part of an ongoing competitive research project — treat it as one round of a comparison table that will keep growing across future threads in this Space, not a standalone answer to be optimized in isolation.

OUR COMPANY / PRODUCT
Northwind Analytics, a mid-market marketing attribution platform

COMPETITORS TO COVER THIS ROUND
Attribution.io, Ruler Analytics, Dreamdata

COMPARISON DIMENSIONS (keep these exact column headers every time this is run again — do not rename, reorder, or merge them even if a different phrasing would read more naturally for this round)
Starting price, Free tier, Attribution model type, G2 rating, Last major feature launch

INDUSTRY CONTEXT
B2B marketing attribution software, mid-market segment ($10k-$100k ACV)

OUTPUT FORMAT
A table: Competitor | Starting price, Free tier, Attribution model type, G2 rating, Last major feature launch — with one citation per cell, not one citation covering the whole row. If a cell cannot be filled from a verifiable public source, write "not publicly disclosed" rather than estimating a number and presenting it as fact, and rather than leaving the cell blank in a way that looks like an oversight instead of a deliberate gap.

CONSISTENCY CHECK
If any competitor in this round was also covered in a prior round of this same comparison (assume prior threads in this Space exist), briefly note whether anything in their row has changed since then, and flag if a number in this round looks inconsistent with what a prior round likely reported for the same dimension, so drift gets caught rather than silently compounding round over round.

AFTER THE TABLE
One paragraph: what changed about the competitive picture since the last obvious public update from any of these competitors — a product launch, a pricing change, a funding round, a leadership change. Flag anything time-sensitive or recently announced as provisional rather than settled, since recent announcements are the most likely place for a source to be wrong or incomplete.