AI Indexes
HR AI Index
Index › Workforce planning and analytics › Workforce planning › Homebase vs TeamOhana
Workforce planning · October 2026 Edition

Homebase vs TeamOhana

Zero of fourteen models named Homebase first on the direct prompt; one named TeamOhana. Homebase was named by ten of the fourteen models and TeamOhana by eight and Homebase carries 10 labels and TeamOhana 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Homebase

accepted challenger

Named in eighteen categories this edition.

TeamOhana

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

First-choice share12%5%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#2#5A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels1013A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Homebase reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.ChartHop was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. ChartHop vs Homebase · ChartHop vs TeamOhana · Homebase vs Abacum

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 workforce planning page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
HomebaseFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTeamOhana
Direct01
Paraphrase02
Comparative00
Budget-constrained70
Scale-constrained00
Negative00
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 Homebase and TeamOhana 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
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Homebase TeamOhana first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Homebase on the left and TeamOhana on the right.

The direct prompt

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

TeamOhana first, Homebase not the choice

1 of 14 modelsHomebase was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-6 LunaTeamOhana alternatives: Pigment, Workday Adaptive Planning

Neither was the first choice, one was named

1 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Gemini 3.5 FlashChartHop alternatives: Aleph, Cube, Lative, Mosaic, Pigment, Runn, TeamOhana

Neither was named

12 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5ChartHop, HiBob alternatives: Paylocity, Planful, Visier
GPT-5.4 miniWorkday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Anaplan, HiBob, Rippling
Perplexity SonarPaylocity alternatives: ChartHop, Drivetrain, HiBob, Workday Adaptive Planning
Grok 4.1 FastHiBob, Rippling alternatives: ChartHop
Mistral SmallChartHop alternatives: Anaplan, Paylocity, Visier
DeepSeek V4 FlashAbacum, Planful alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Workday Adaptive Planning
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashChartHop alternatives: Planful, Rippling, Visier
Kimi K2ChartHop alternatives: Abacum, Paylocity, Planful, Workday Adaptive Planning
GLM 4.7 FlashXChartHop alternatives: Anaplan, Paylocity, Visier, Workday Adaptive Planning
MiniMax M2.5HiBob alternatives: ChartHop, Paylocity, Rippling
Muse Glimmer 30BAbacum, Planful alternatives: ChartHop, Paylocity, Vena, Visier, Workday Adaptive Planning

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
Homebase leads by eighteen points.
Homebase20%#2 of 13
TeamOhana2%#8 of 13
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Homebase leads by seven points.
Homebase12%#2 of 15
TeamOhana5%#5 of 15
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Homebase is not named for this buyer.
TeamOhana4%#– of 10
Homebase—not named
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Homebase

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

“For most budget-constrained companies, Homebase (if you have an hourly workforce) or Zoho People ... offer the best value.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about TeamOhana

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

“I'd start with TeamOhana. It's purpose-built to connect Finance, HR, and Talent around a shared hiring plan” GPT-6 Luna · direct prompt · first choice
“My default recommendation: TeamOhana” GPT-6 Luna · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“## Top Recommendation: TeamOhana” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
ChartHop vs HomebaseChartHop vs TeamOhanaHomebase vs AbacumHomebase vs Workday Adaptive PlanningHomebase vs PlanfulHomebase vs HiBobHomebase vs RipplingAbacum vs TeamOhanaWorkday Adaptive Planning vs TeamOhanaTeamOhana vs PlanfulTeamOhana vs HiBobTeamOhana vs RipplingAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full workforce planning 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.