HR AI Index
Index › Performance and talent management › Skills intelligence › TechWolf vs 365Talents
Skills intelligence · September 2026 Edition

TechWolf vs 365Talents

Zero of twelve models named TechWolf first on the direct prompt; zero named 365Talents. TechWolf was named by eight of the twelve models and 365Talents by seven and both carry 11 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.

TechWolf

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

365Talents

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share9%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate18%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#6A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.
Labels1111Equal, which is what makes the shares comparable.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, TechWolf reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.TalentGuard was named alongside these two in nine of the twelve direct answers. TalentGuard vs TechWolf · TalentGuard vs 365Talents · Skills Base vs TechWolf

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 skills intelligence page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
TechWolfFirst choices, of twelve models365Talents
Direct00
Paraphrase322 against TechWolf
Comparative00
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained11
Negative00
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 TechWolf and 365Talents 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
TechWolf 365Talents first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, TechWolf on the left and 365Talents on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where TechWolf and 365Talents stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

2 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Kimi K2TalentGuard alternatives: 365Talents, Engagedly, Fuel50, TechWolf
MiniMax M2.5TalentGuard alternatives: 365Talents, Gloat

Neither was named

10 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5TalentGuard alternatives: Amplemarket, iMocha
GPT-5.4 miniEightfold AI, SkillPanel alternatives: Fuel50, Retrain.ai, Workday Skills Cloud
Gemini 3.5 FlashCareer Bird alternatives: Docebo, Fuel50, Workera
Perplexity SonarTalentGuard alternatives: INOP, SkillPanel, Skills Base, iMocha
Grok 4.1 FastTalentGuard, iMocha alternatives: Fuel50
Mistral SmallTalentGuard, iMocha alternatives: Bryq, INOP
DeepSeek V4 FlashFuel50, TalentGuard alternatives: MuchSkills, Skills Base
Llama 4 MaverickTalentGuard alternatives: Criteria Corp, Engagedly, iMocha
Qwen 3.7 FlashEightfold AI alternatives: Clad.io, DeepSkill, Gloat, Lightcast Open Skills
GLM 4.7 FlashXiMocha alternatives: MuchSkills, Skills Base, TalentGuard

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
Level: the same share of first choices.
TechWolf0%#– of 10
365Talents0%#– of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
TechWolf leads by two points.
TechWolf9%#5 of 16
365Talents6%#6 of 16
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
TechWolf leads by twelve points.
TechWolf12%#3 of 10
365Talents0%#8 of 10
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about TechWolf

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

“or *TechWolf* (built for complex global structures)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Strong but can be overkill/heavier integration” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“at 500 employees, specialized mid-market platforms like TechWolf, 365Talents, or SkillPanel may be a better fit for speed and cost” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Primary Recommendation: TechWolf + Lightcast (Open Skills) Combination” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“My Top Recommendation: TechWolf or 365Talents” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · first choice

What the models said about 365Talents

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

“365Talents as your primary skills intelligence platform (best fit for mid-market companies specifically)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“specialized mid-market platforms like TechWolf, 365Talents, or SkillPanel may be a better fit” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
Also compared
TalentGuard vs TechWolfTalentGuard vs 365TalentsSkills Base vs TechWolfSkills Base vs 365TalentsiMocha vs TechWolfiMocha vs 365TalentsLightcast Open Skills vs TechWolfLightcast Open Skills vs 365TalentsTechWolf vs Eightfold AITechWolf vs Fuel50365Talents vs Eightfold AI365Talents vs Fuel50All twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full skills intelligence 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.