HR AI Index
Index Performance and talent management Succession planning › Teamflect vs SuccessionStack
Succession planning · September 2026 Edition

Teamflect vs SuccessionStack

Zero of twelve models named Teamflect first on the direct prompt; two named SuccessionStack. Teamflect was named by six of the twelve models and SuccessionStack by eight and Teamflect carries 10 labels and SuccessionStack 14, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Teamflect

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

SuccessionStack

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share6%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#7A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels1014A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Teamflect reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Lattice was named alongside these two in ten of the twelve direct answers. Lattice vs Teamflect · Lattice vs SuccessionStack · Engagedly vs Teamflect

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 succession planning page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
TeamflectFirst choices, of twelve modelsSuccessionStack
Direct02
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained30
Scale-constrained00
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 Teamflect and SuccessionStack 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
Teamflect SuccessionStack first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Teamflect on the left and SuccessionStack on the right.

The direct prompt

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

SuccessionStack first, Teamflect not the choice

2 of 12 modelsTeamflect was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Kimi K2SuccessionStack alternatives: ClearCompany, Engagedly, Lattice, Paylocity
GLM 4.7 FlashXDayforce, Engagedly, Lattice, SuccessionStack alternatives: Cornerstone OnDemand, Leapsome, SAP SuccessFactors, SuccessionNow, TalentGuard, UKG Pro Succession Planning, Workday HCM

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.
Gemini 3.5 FlashLattice alternatives: ChartHop, OrgChart, PerformYard, SuccessionNow, Teamflect
Grok 4.1 FastEngagedly alternatives: Lattice, SuccessionNow, SuccessionStack
Mistral SmallEngagedly, Lattice alternatives: SuccessionNow, SuccessionStack, TalentGuard
DeepSeek V4 FlashEngagedly, Lattice alternatives: Leapsome, Paylocity, SuccessionNow, SuccessionStack
Llama 4 MaverickEngagedly alternatives: Lattice, SuccessionStack, UKG Pro Succession Planning
Qwen 3.7 FlashEngagedly alternatives: Lattice, SuccessionStack, SuccessionWizard, TalentGuard

Neither was named

4 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Engagedly, Lattice alternatives: ChartHop, ELMO Software, Fuel50, TalentGuard
GPT-5.4 miniUKG Pro alternatives: Cornerstone Succession, Quantum Workplace, SAP SuccessFactors HCM
Perplexity SonarTalentGuard alternatives: Engagedly
MiniMax M2.5Engagedly alternatives: Lattice, TalentGuard, UKG Pro

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
Teamflect leads by four points.
Teamflect4%#6 of 9
SuccessionStack0%#– of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Teamflect leads by two points.
Teamflect6%#4 of 13
SuccessionStack4%#7 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Teamflect is not named for this buyer.
SuccessionStack2%#– of 11
Teamflectnot named
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Teamflect

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

“If you have fewer than 10 employees: Use Teamflect’s free plan (or download a free Excel template) + Creately for visual mapping. This costs you $0.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“For the tightest budget, I'd suggest starting with Creately or Teamflect since they have free tiers.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about SuccessionStack

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

“If succession planning is a strategic priority and you want best-in-class depth without enterprise complexity → SuccessionStack” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
“Engagedly, Lattice, Dayforce, or SuccessionStack strike the best balance of functionality, usability, and pricing” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · first choice
“if you want succession as the entire product, choose a dedicated tool (SuccessionStack, TalentGuard, SuccessionNow)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared

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.