HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Applauz · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Applauz

5Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

5 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.1, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Applauz was named 1 time in Recognition and rewards, where Bonusly led with 22%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business19 of 47

under the label threshold

Mid-market29 of 55

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In recognition and rewards · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Applauz 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
Recognition and rewards	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	29 of 55	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Bonusly at 22%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative2 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

“Lowest-cost small-team option: Applauz if you have 20 or fewer users” Perplexity Sonar · Recognition and rewards · budget 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 Applauz, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Applauz was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Assembly4 of 51Not in the top three

Bonusly3 of 51Not in the top three

Nectar3 of 50Not in the top three

Connecteam2 of 50Not in the top three

Enalyzer1 of 51Not in the top three

Matter1 of 51Not in the top three

15Five1 of 50Not in the top three

BetterHelp1 of 50Not in the top three

Employment Hero1 of 50Not in the top three

Empuls1 of 50Not 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 Applauz. 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 5 of the 5 answers that named Applauz and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

selectsoftwarereviews.com4

firsthr.app3

applauz.meYour site2

blog.accessperks.com2

capterra.com2

crewhu.com2

g2.com2

hubengage.com2

peoplemanagingpeople.com2

small-improvements.com2

Twenty-one of the twenty-three domain citations in answers naming Applauz came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

applauz.me/resources/best-employee-engagement-platforms2

blog.accessperks.com/best-employee-recognition-programs-for-small-businesses2

crewhu.com/blog/employee-recognition-software2

hubengage.com/guides/employee-recognition-software2

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/best-employee-engagement-software2

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/employee-recognition-software2

small-improvements.com/blog/best-employee-engagement-software2

workhuman.com/blog/employee-recognition-software2

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 Applauz'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 Applauz, 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 applauz.me 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.