HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › AssessTEAM · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

AssessTEAM

18Judge labels

4First choices

2Negative labels

9 of 12Models named it

2Categories

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

Standing

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. AssessTEAM was named 7 times in 360 feedback and 1 other category, where Lattice led with 40%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business35 of 52

under the label threshold

Mid-market12 of 77

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In 360 feedback · 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 AssessTEAM 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
360 feedback	Performance and talent management	2%	12 of 77	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 40%
Performance management	Performance and talent management	2%	12 of 60	20%	5	under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 41%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AssessTEAM 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 AssessTEAM 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	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	2	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	0	1

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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained9 labels4

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative3 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative18 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 5 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.

“For ultra-low budget (<50 employees), start with AssessTEAM or Performance Pro—pure performance at rock-bottom prices.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Performance management · budget prompt · first choice

“For the absolute lowest cost per user: AssessTEAM at $2/user/month with no contracts.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · 360 feedback · budget prompt · first choice

“Best for Simplicity ... Downsides: Feature set is lighter; lacks deep integrations” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Performance management · budget prompt · alternative

“Starting at $2/user/month - one of the most affordable options” MiniMax M2.5 · 360 feedback · 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.

“Forbes gives it a 2/10 for Customer Support and 3/10 for Customization” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Performance management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AssessTEAM, over the 18 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AssessTEAM was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Lattice11 of 182Not in the top three

Small Improvements11 of 181Not in the top three

Teamflect10 of 180Not in the top three

BambooHR9 of 180Not in the top three

Effy AI8 of 183Not in the top three

Leapsome7 of 182Not in the top three

15Five7 of 181Not in the top three

PerformYard6 of 180Not in the top three

Profit.co5 of 180Not in the top three

Zoho People5 of 180Not 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 AssessTEAM. 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 18 answers that named AssessTEAM and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

capterra.com11

workhuman.com10

forbes.com9

effy.ai8

betterworks.com6

g2.com6

peoplemanagingpeople.com6

teamflect.com6

selectsoftwarereviews.com5

guideflow.com4

Seventy-one of the seventy-one domain citations in answers naming AssessTEAM came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

forbes.com/advisor/business/software/best-performance-management-software9

capterra.com/resources/best-performance-management-software-small-business-reviews-analysi7

effy.ai/blog/performance-management-software-for-small-business7

capterra.com/performance-appraisal-software/s/small-businesses5

effy.ai/blog/performance-review-software5

workhuman.com/blog/best-performance-management-software5

workhuman.com/blog/best-360-degree-feedback-software-tools4

betterworks.com/magazine/best-360-degree-feedback-tools3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as AssessTEAM

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as AssessTEAM; a claim can dispute any of them.

AssessTeam 1

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 AssessTEAM'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 AssessTEAM, 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 assess.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.