There is no best CRM, only a best fit
The reason the question has no general answer is that CRM systems fail for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the software and almost everything to do with the shape of the business that bought it.
Three variables decide most of it. The first is team size. One person tracking forty relationships needs a memory aid; six people with a sales manager need a shared source of truth with permissions and a reporting layer, which is a materially different product. The second is sales motion. A tradie quoting twelve jobs a week and a consultancy nurturing a client for two years both need a pipeline, but one needs speed at the top and the other needs continuity in the middle. The third, and the one nobody asks about until month three, is who does the admin. If the answer is the salespeople themselves, every extra required field is a tax on adoption. If the answer is an office coordinator entering everything, you can afford more structure.
Notice that none of those three is a feature comparison. Feature grids are how vendors prefer the conversation to go, because every vendor can tick every box on a long enough list. The questions above cannot be answered by ticking anything.
A fourth variable matters in New Zealand specifically: how small your total addressable market is. In a market where your industry might contain two hundred realistic buyers nationally, losing the history on an account because someone left is more expensive than it would be in a market with twenty thousand. That argues for putting more weight on record continuity and less on volume-oriented automation than a lot of overseas buying advice assumes.
