Pay equity · October 2026 Edition
Figures vs Aeqium
Zero of fourteen models named Figures first on the direct prompt; two named Aeqium. Figures was named by nine of the fourteen models and Aeqium by nine and Figures carries 15 labels and Aeqium 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share7%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate7%17%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#8A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels1512A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Figures reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Payscale was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Syndio vs Figures · Syndio vs Aeqium · PayAnalytics vs Figures
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 pay equity page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
FiguresFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAeqium
Direct02
Paraphrase40
Comparative00
Budget-constrained001 against Aeqium
Scale-constrained00
Negative001 against Figures · 1 against Aeqium
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 Figures and Aeqium 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 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | |
Figures Aeqium first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Figures on the left and Aeqium on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Figures and Aeqium stood in it.
Aeqium first, Figures not the choice
2 of 14 modelsFigures was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarAeqium alternatives: HiBob, Payscale, Salary.com Pay Equity, Workleap Compensation
Mistral SmallAeqium alternatives: Sysarb, Workleap Compensation
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Grok 4.1 FastWorkleap Compensation alternatives: Aeqium, HiBob, Payscale
GLM 4.7 FlashXSyndio alternatives: Aeqium, Affirmity, Compport, Figures, HiBob, Pave, PayAnalytics, Payscale, Workday Pay Equity, beqom Pay Equity
MiniMax M2.5HiBob alternatives: Aeqium, Pave, Payscale, Workleap Compensation
Neither was named
9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Workleap Compensation alternatives: Compport, OpenComp, PayAnalytics, Payscale, Syndio, Trusaic PayParity
GPT-5.4 miniSyndio alternatives: PayAnalytics, Trusaic PayParity
Gemini 3.5 FlashPayAnalytics alternatives: CandorIQ, Pequity, Syndio, Trusaic PayParity
DeepSeek V4 FlashPayAnalytics alternatives: Compport, Payscale, Syndio
Llama 4 MaverickWorkleap Compensation alternatives: Affirmity, Effy
Qwen 3.7 FlashPave alternatives: Payscale, Phodata, Workleap Compensation
Kimi K2PayAnalytics, Syndio alternatives: Payscale, Trusaic PayParity
GPT-6 LunaPayscale alternatives: Syndio, Trusaic PayParity
Muse Glimmer 30BPayAnalytics, beqom Pay Equity alternatives: Syndio, Trusaic PayParity
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
Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Figures0%#6 of 8Aeqium0%#– of 8What the models said about Figures
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“Tools requiring heavy analyst intervention (e.g., certain configurations of Aeqium, Figures)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“If EU-based or global: Figures offers the best balance of compliance features and usability for mid-market” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I'd suggest starting with Figures or Syndio as they balance functionality with mid-market accessibility” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Top Recommendation: Figures HR (if EU/UK focus) or Syndio (if global/US focus)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Aeqium
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“Tools requiring heavy analyst intervention (e.g., certain configurations of Aeqium, Figures)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“are quote-only and do not publish prices” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · soft negative
“I'd choose Aeqium for the best balance of analysis depth, reporting traceability, and fit for mid-market HR analytics teams” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice
“Aeqium being a top choice for its comprehensive features” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Syndio vs FiguresSyndio vs AeqiumPayAnalytics vs FiguresPayAnalytics vs AeqiumPayscale vs FiguresPayscale vs AeqiumFigures vs Workleap CompensationFigures vs PaveFigures vs Trusaic PayParityWorkleap Compensation vs AeqiumPave vs AeqiumTrusaic PayParity vs AeqiumAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full pay equity 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.