Every category where a model named Aeqium for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	6%	3 of 189	0%	23	accepted challenger
Pay equity	Compensation and total rewards	2%	10 of 60	6%	17	accepted challenger
Workforce planning	Workforce planning and analytics	0%	33 of 89	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by ChartHop at 31%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Aeqium yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Aeqium across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	4	0	0	6
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	2	0	4
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	0	2
Mistral Small	0	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	2	5	0	0	7
Llama 4 Maverick	0	2	2	0	4
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	0	1	3
Kimi K2	1	3	1	0	5
GLM 4.7 FlashX	4	2	0	0	6
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	0	2

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct11 labels3

Paraphrase13 labels2

Comparative31 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained12 labels6

Scale-constrained13 labels1

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative81 labels in all, every segment counted; 12 of the 13 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Aeqium (Best for Overall Compensation Planning) ... offers a completely free plan specifically designed for smaller teams transitioning away from spreadsheets.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Compensation management · budget prompt · first choice

“Best overall dedicated platform: Aeqium – strong statistical rigor, traceable variance, and governance‑ready reporting.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Pay equity · direct prompt · first choice

“Built from the ground up as an *execution* platform... AI-assisted cycles, no-code config, audit trails... Fast rollout.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compensation management · comparative prompt · first choice

“Best low‑cost solution: Aeqium (free basic plan) or Empxtrack (free HR offerings).” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Compensation management · budget prompt · first choice

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“a full regression analysis suite like Aeqium or Syndio (which are powerful but typically reserved for much larger budgets)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Pay equity · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Aeqium, over the 75 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Aeqium was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pave42 of 7518Compare →

Syndio32 of 7519Not in the top three

Payscale32 of 753Not in the top three

beqom28 of 754Not in the top three

Comprehensive22 of 754Compare →

Compport21 of 751Not in the top three

Trusaic PayParity20 of 753Not in the top three

PayAnalytics18 of 753Not in the top three

OpenComp17 of 753Not in the top three

QuotaPath16 of 757Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Aeqium. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 64 of the 75 answers that named Aeqium and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com51

peoplemanagingpeople.com42

worldmetrics.org41

guideflow.com31

comprehensive.io27

g2.com23

learn.g2.com21

hibob.com19

ravio.com17

soteriahr.com16

288 of the 288 domain citations in answers naming Aeqium came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-pay-equity-software30

gartner.com/reviews/market/pay-equity-software28

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software27

worldmetrics.org/best/pay-equity-software26

gartner.com/reviews/market/compensation-management-software25

hibob.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software19

guideflow.com/blog/pay-equity-software18

learn.g2.com/best-compensation-management-software18

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Aeqium's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Aeqium, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at aeqium.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.