Goals and OKRs · September 2026 Edition
Profit.co vs Leapsome
Zero of twelve models named Profit.co first on the direct prompt; zero named Leapsome. Profit.co was named by eleven of the twelve models and Leapsome by eleven and Profit.co carries 33 labels and Leapsome 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in thirteen categories this edition.
First-choice share7%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate15%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels3320A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Profit.co reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Tability was named alongside these two in eleven of the twelve direct answers. Tability vs Profit.co · Tability vs Leapsome · Lattice vs Profit.co
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 goals and okrs page.
By framing
How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Profit.coFirst choices, of twelve modelsLeapsome
Direct00
Paraphrase021 against Profit.co
Comparative001 against Profit.co
Budget-constrained301 against Profit.co
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Profit.co · 1 against Leapsome
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 Profit.co and Leapsome 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 | | | |
Profit.co Leapsome first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Profit.co on the left and Leapsome on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Profit.co and Leapsome stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
6 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Mooncamp alternatives: Leapsome, Tability
GPT-5.4 miniPerdoo alternatives: Asana, Lattice, Leapsome, WorkBoard
Gemini 3.5 FlashTability alternatives: 15Five, Lattice, Leapsome, Mooncamp, Perdoo, Profit.co, Synergita, Teamflect
Grok 4.1 FastTability alternatives: Mooncamp, Perdoo, Profit.co
DeepSeek V4 FlashTability alternatives: Mooncamp, Perdoo, Profit.co
Kimi K2Mooncamp, Tability alternatives: Perdoo, Profit.co
Neither was named
6 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Perplexity SonarTability alternatives: Lattice, Mooncamp, Perdoo, Quantive
Mistral SmallMooncamp, Tability alternatives: FlowyTeam, Perdoo
Llama 4 MaverickTability alternatives: FlowyTeam, Mooncamp, Perdoo
Qwen 3.7 FlashMooncamp, Tability alternatives: Perdoo, WorkBoard
GLM 4.7 FlashXTability alternatives: Mooncamp, Perdoo
MiniMax M2.5Mooncamp alternatives: Perdoo, Tability
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
Profit.co leads by seven points.
Profit.co7%#3 of 13Leapsome0%#– of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
Profit.co leads by fourteen points.
Profit.co14%#3 of 13Leapsome0%#– of 13What the models said about Profit.co
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid Profit.co (overwhelming complexity)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“it has a steep learning curve because every key result must first be mapped to a defined KPI system” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · soft negative
“The user interface has a steeper learning curve and can feel complex for beginners.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Profit.co's free plan stands out as the most comprehensive free option that doesn't sacrifice essential features.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“1. Profit.co - *Best overall free plan* - Permanently free plan with unlimited OKRs and unlimited users” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“my top pick is Profit.co because it offers a permanently free plan with broad OKR functionality” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Leapsome
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“HR-suite "goals modules" (Lattice, Leapsome, ...) ... Risky if you want dedicated OKR tracking” MiniMax M2.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“For a mid-sized B2B company, Leapsome is often the most recommended for its balance of features, ease of use, and scalability.” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Primary Recommendation: Leapsome” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
Tability vs Profit.coTability vs LeapsomeLattice vs Profit.coLattice vs LeapsomeMooncamp vs Profit.coMooncamp vs LeapsomeOKRs Tool vs Profit.coOKRs Tool vs LeapsomePerdoo vs Profit.coPerdoo vs LeapsomeProfit.co vs 15FiveLeapsome vs 15FiveAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full goals and okrs 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.