Interview scheduling · September 2026 Edition
GoodTime vs Workable
Two of twelve models named GoodTime first on the direct prompt; zero named Workable. GoodTime was named by twelve of the twelve models and Workable by ten and GoodTime carries 45 labels and Workable 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in nine categories this edition.
First-choice share9%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate24%8%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#8A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels4512A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, GoodTime reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.ModernLoop was named alongside these two in ten of the twelve direct answers. Calendly vs GoodTime · Calendly vs Workable · ModernLoop vs GoodTime
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 interview scheduling page.
By framing
How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
GoodTimeFirst choices, of twelve modelsWorkable
Direct201 against GoodTime
Paraphrase021 against GoodTime
Comparative50
Budget-constrained004 against GoodTime · 1 against Workable
Scale-constrained301 against GoodTime
Negative104 against GoodTime
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 GoodTime and Workable 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 | | | | |
GoodTime Workable first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, GoodTime on the left and Workable on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where GoodTime and Workable stood in it.
GoodTime first, Workable not the choice
2 of 12 modelsWorkable was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniGoodTime alternatives: Ashby, Calendly
Grok 4.1 FastGoodTime, Lever alternatives: Greenhouse, ModernLoop
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Perplexity SonarModernLoop alternatives: GoodTime, Lever
Qwen 3.7 FlashGreenhouse alternatives: Calendly, GoodTime, Lever, LimeLight, Lunacal
Kimi K2Lever alternatives: GoodTime, Greenhouse, ModernLoop
GLM 4.7 FlashXModernLoop alternatives: GoodTime, Lever, candidate.fyi
MiniMax M2.5Cal.com, Lever alternatives: GoodTime, Greenhouse, ModernLoop
Neither was named
5 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Cronofy, Greenhouse alternatives: Calendly, Koalendar, ModernLoop
Gemini 3.5 FlashModernLoop alternatives: Ashby, candidate.fyi
Mistral SmallLever alternatives: Koalendar, ModernLoop
DeepSeek V4 FlashGreenhouse, ModernLoop alternatives: Ashby, Calendly, Lever
Llama 4 MaverickModernLoop alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever
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
Workable leads by two points.
Workable2%#– of 11GoodTime0%#10 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: GoodTime leads at mid-market.
GoodTime9%#5 of 11Workable4%#8 of 11Enterprise
Workable is not named for this buyer.
GoodTime56%#1 of 9Workable—not namedWhat the models said about GoodTime
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 ATS-style recruiting platforms like Breezy HR, Workable, or GoodTime if budget is tight” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
“Enterprise, quote-only, often thousands per month — avoid these on a limited budget” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Frequent reports of bugs like missing time slots, crashes, slow performance, calendar sync glitches, and timezone issues.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“Choose GoodTime if you have a dedicated recruiting team and want to automate the administrative side of interviewing” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“GoodTime is the top choice for enterprises whose scheduling challenge extends beyond simple booking” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“Best overall for mid-market recruiting teams: GoodTime if you run multi-interviewer panels” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Workable
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“Avoid ATS-style recruiting platforms like Breezy HR, Workable, or GoodTime if budget is tight” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
Also compared
Calendly vs GoodTimeCalendly vs WorkableModernLoop vs GoodTimeModernLoop vs WorkableGreenhouse vs GoodTimeGreenhouse vs WorkableKoalendar vs GoodTimeKoalendar vs WorkableGoodTime vs LeverGoodTime vs candidate.fyiLever vs Workablecandidate.fyi vs WorkableAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full interview scheduling 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.