Payroll software · October 2026 Edition
Gusto vs Paylocity
Zero of fourteen models named Gusto first on the direct prompt; one named Paylocity. Both were named by all fourteen models and Gusto carries 49 labels and Paylocity 31, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in twenty-four categories this edition.
Named in twenty categories this edition.
First-choice share6%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate27%19%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels4931A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Gusto reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Rippling was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Rippling vs Gusto · Rippling vs Paylocity · ADP Workforce Now vs Gusto
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the payroll software page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
GustoFirst choices, of fourteen modelsPaylocity
Direct011 against Gusto
Paraphrase202 against Gusto
Comparative110
Budget-constrained101 against Gusto
Scale-constrained012 against Gusto
Negative007 against Gusto · 6 against Paylocity
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Gusto and Paylocity stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | | |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | | ||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | | | ||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | | |
| Kimi K2 | | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | | | |
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | |
Gusto Paylocity first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Gusto on the left and Paylocity on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Gusto and Paylocity stood in it.
Paylocity first, Gusto not the choice
1 of 14 modelsGusto was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-6 LunaPaylocity alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Rippling, UKG Ready
Neither was the first choice, one was named
11 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Paycom alternatives: ADP, Deel, G-P, Namely, Paylocity, Rippling
GPT-5.4 miniRippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Deel, Paylocity
Gemini 3.5 FlashRippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Paycom, Paylocity
Perplexity SonarRippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Paycom, Paylocity
Grok 4.1 FastRippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Deel, Gusto, Paychex Flex, Paycom, Paycor, Paylocity
Mistral SmallADP, Rippling alternatives: Keka, Paylocity
DeepSeek V4 FlashADP Workforce Now, Rippling alternatives: Dayforce, Paycom, Paylocity
Qwen 3.7 FlashADP Workforce Now alternatives: Dayforce, Gusto, Paycom
Kimi K2Rippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Paycom, Paylocity
GLM 4.7 FlashXADP alternatives: Dayforce, Gusto, Paycom, Paycor, Paylocity, Rippling
Muse Glimmer 30Bno first choice alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Namely, Paychex Flex, Paycor, Paylocity
Neither was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
MiniMax M2.5ADP Workforce Now, Paycom, Paycor alternatives: QuickBooks Payroll
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Gusto leads by forty-nine points.
Gusto49%#1 of 11Paylocity0%#– of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: Paylocity leads at enterprise.
Paylocity6%#4 of 14Gusto0%#14 of 14What the models said about Gusto
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“Small US business with <500 employees, no HR department: Start with Gusto for simplicity and transparency.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
What the models said about Paylocity
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“Be cautious with these payroll platforms... Paylocity: Frequent complaints about poor customer service, glitchy platform” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · hard negative
“Paylocity - Some users have reported subpar customer support and technical issues with the platform.” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · hard negative
“Unresponsive customer support ... Glitchy software that's difficult to navigate” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Paylocity: Highly rated for its balance of flexibility, HR tools, and ease of use in the mid-market space.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
Also compared
Rippling vs GustoRippling vs PaylocityADP Workforce Now vs GustoADP Workforce Now vs PaylocityPatriot Payroll vs GustoPatriot Payroll vs PaylocityADP vs GustoADP vs PaylocityPaycom vs GustoPaycom vs PaylocityGusto vs Paychex FlexPaylocity vs Paychex FlexAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full payroll software standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.