HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Beekeeper/LumApps · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Beekeeper/LumApps

3Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

3 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. Beekeeper/LumApps was named 1 time in Frontline employee apps, where Connecteam led with 56%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business60 of 72

under the label threshold

Mid-market33 of 97

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In frontline employee apps · 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 Beekeeper/LumApps 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
Frontline employee apps	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	33 of 97	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Connecteam at 56%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Beekeeper/LumApps 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 Beekeeper/LumApps 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	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1
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

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 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.

“the more you'd lean toward Blink, Staffbase, or Beekeeper” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Frontline employee apps · scale 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 Beekeeper/LumApps, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Beekeeper/LumApps was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Staffbase3 of 30Not in the top three

Connecteam2 of 32Not in the top three

Blink2 of 30Not in the top three

Microsoft Teams2 of 30Not in the top three

7shifts1 of 30Not in the top three

Deputy1 of 30Not in the top three

Firstup1 of 30Not in the top three

Homebase1 of 30Not in the top three

Signal1 of 30Not in the top three

Sling1 of 30Not 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 Beekeeper/LumApps. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named Beekeeper/LumApps and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

getzelos.com3

mangoapps.com3

theprotoolkit.com3

getflip.com2

staffbase.com2

viewpointanalysis.com2

blog.salescaptain.com1

capterra.com1

cloudtango.net1

crisp.chat1

Nineteen of the nineteen domain citations in answers naming Beekeeper/LumApps came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

getzelos.com/best-frontline-employee-apps3

theprotoolkit.com/best-frontline-employee-communication-software-small-business-20263

mangoapps.com/articles/best-frontline-communication-software2

mangoapps.com/articles/frontline-communication-platforms-guide2

staffbase.com/blog/frontline-communication-tools2

blog.salescaptain.com/best-front-app-alternative-for-small-business-20251

capterra.com/p/10010662/Frontline-Data-Solutions/reviews1

capterra.com/p/184958/K-12-ERP/reviews1

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 Beekeeper/LumApps'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 Beekeeper/LumApps, 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 beekeeper.io 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.