Every category where a model named AmazingHiring 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
Recruiting CRM and sourcing	Talent acquisition	0%	24 of 88	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by Lever at 20%
Talent intelligence	Performance and talent management	0%	23 of 77	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Pin at 17%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AmazingHiring 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 AmazingHiring across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Direct5 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Engineering & technical talent across 50+ sites (GitHub, Stack Overflow, etc.); strong for dev‑centric roles.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Recruiting CRM · comparative prompt · alternative

“Technical hiring (engineers, data scientists) | AmazingHiring or SeekOut (tech filter)” MiniMax M2.5 · Recruiting CRM · comparative prompt · alternative

“AmazingHiring (~$165/mo) is a strong niche pick for technical roles.” Llama 4 Maverick · Talent intelligence · direct prompt · alternative

“much more specialized for engineering talent than generalist tools” GPT-5.4 mini · Recruiting CRM · comparative prompt · alternative

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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AmazingHiring, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AmazingHiring was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Gem18 of 204Not in the top three

hireEZ16 of 202Not in the top three

Eightfold AI10 of 200Not in the top three

SeekOut10 of 200Not in the top three

Loxo9 of 204Not in the top three

LinkedIn Recruiter9 of 202Not in the top three

Lessie AI8 of 205Not in the top three

Beamery6 of 200Not in the top three

Juicebox6 of 200Not in the top three

Ashby5 of 200Not 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 AmazingHiring. 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 17 of the 20 answers that named AmazingHiring and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

metaview.ai14

learn.g2.com10

lessie.ai10

g2.com6

selectsoftwarereviews.com6

juicebox.ai5

leonar.app5

pin.com5

sitepoint.com4

xobin.com4

Sixty-nine of the sixty-nine domain citations in answers naming AmazingHiring came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

learn.g2.com/best-talent-intelligence-software10

lessie.ai/blog/talent-intelligence-platforms10

metaview.ai/resources/blog/talent-intelligence-platforms7

metaview.ai/resources/blog/candidate-sourcing-tools6

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/best-candidate-sourcing-tools6

g2.com/categories/talent-intelligence/small-business5

juicebox.ai/blog/best-sourcing-tools-for-recruiters5

leonar.app/blog/best-talent-sourcing-platforms5

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 AmazingHiring'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 AmazingHiring, 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 amazinghiring.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.