HR AI Index
Index › Core HR and payroll › Payroll software › Paylocity vs Gusto
Payroll software · September 2026 Edition

Paylocity vs Gusto

Five of twelve models named Paylocity first on the direct prompt; zero named Gusto. Paylocity was named by eleven of the twelve models and Gusto by twelve and Paylocity carries 35 labels and Gusto 45, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Paylocity

criticized challenger

Named in twenty categories this edition.

Gusto

accepted challenger

Named in eighteen categories this edition.

First-choice share17%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate29%13%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels3545A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Paylocity reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Rippling was named alongside these two in eleven of the twelve direct answers. Rippling vs Paylocity · Rippling vs Gusto · Patriot Payroll vs Paylocity

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve 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 twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
PaylocityFirst choices, of twelve modelsGusto
Direct501 against Gusto
Paraphrase221 against Gusto
Comparative010
Budget-constrained001 against Gusto
Scale-constrained101 against Gusto
Negative0210 against Paylocity · 2 against Gusto
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Paylocity and Gusto stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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
Paylocity Gusto first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Paylocity on the left and Gusto on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Paylocity and Gusto stood in it.

Paylocity first, Gusto not the choice

5 of 12 modelsGusto was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Perplexity SonarPaylocity, Rippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Paycom
Grok 4.1 FastPaylocity, Rippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Paycom
DeepSeek V4 FlashPaylocity alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Paycom, Rippling, UKG Pro
GLM 4.7 FlashXPaylocity, Rippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Paycor, UKG Pro, Workday
MiniMax M2.5ADP Workforce Now, Paylocity alternatives: Rippling, UKG Pro

Neither was the first choice, one was named

5 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Rippling alternatives: Paycor, Paylocity
Gemini 3.5 FlashRippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Deel, Paylocity
Mistral SmallPaycom alternatives: ADP, Gusto, Paylocity, Rippling
Qwen 3.7 FlashADP, Rippling alternatives: BambooHR, Gusto, Zenefits
Kimi K2Rippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Gusto, Paycom

Neither was named

2 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniRippling alternatives: ADP Global Payroll, ADP Workforce Now / ADP Full Service Payroll, Deel, Paycom
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice

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 fifty-seven points.
Gusto57%#1 of 10
Paylocity0%#– of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Paylocity leads at mid-market.
Paylocity17%#3 of 13
Gusto4%#6 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Paylocity0%#13 of 13
Gusto0%#– of 13
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Paylocity

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.

“here are the platforms you should be cautious about and why: ### 1. Paylocity ... claim the software causes significant errors in payroll processing” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“multiple user discussions describe poor support and technical issues, so it is a candidate for extra due diligence” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · hard negative

What the models said about Gusto

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.

“Gusto is the most popular all\u2011round choice for small businesses, offering a polished employee experience and built\u2011in HR/benefits.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
“the platforms that most consistently earn positive feedback on simplicity and transparent pricing are Gusto (for small businesses)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Rippling vs PaylocityRippling vs GustoPatriot Payroll vs PaylocityPatriot Payroll vs GustoPaylocity vs ADPPaylocity vs PaycomPaylocity vs ADP Workforce NowPaylocity vs PaycorADP vs GustoPaycom vs GustoGusto vs ADP Workforce NowGusto vs PaycorAll 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.