Every category where a model named candidate.fyi 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
Interview scheduling	Talent acquisition	6%	7 of 72	0%	11	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

Direct10 labels2

Paraphrase5 labels2

Comparative15 labels5not counted in share

Budget-constrained11 labels6

Scale-constrained9 labels3

Negative9 labels4not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative59 labels in all, every segment counted; 13 of the 22 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.

“Built specifically for companies of your size. Strong zero-click automation, heavy interviewer training logic, and branded portals.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Interview scheduling · scale prompt · first choice

“prioritize tools with panel support like GoodTime alternatives (e.g., candidate.fyi, ModernLoop)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Interview scheduling · negative prompt · first choice

“Best for complex panels/enterprise orchestration: GoodTime, candidate.fyi” Kimi K2 · Interview scheduling · scale prompt · first choice

“GoodTime, candidate.fyi, ModernLoop (strong for scale/panels)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Interview scheduling · scale 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as candidate.fyi, over the 59 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and candidate.fyi was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GoodTime53 of 5921Not in the top three

Calendly46 of 595Not in the top three

ModernLoop33 of 593Not in the top three

Paradox30 of 590Not in the top three

Lever17 of 591Not in the top three

VidCruiter16 of 590Not in the top three

Greenhouse15 of 590Not in the top three

YouCanBookMe9 of 590Not in the top three

Cal.com8 of 590Not in the top three

Doodle8 of 590Not 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 candidate.fyi. 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 48 of the 59 answers that named candidate.fyi and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

candidate.fyiYour site43

lever.co35

bestrecruitingtools.com32

goodtime.io31

selectsoftwarereviews.com24

cal.com23

hiretruffle.com21

fluentbooking.com19

metaview.ai19

lunacal.ai15

219 of the 262 domain citations in answers naming candidate.fyi came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

candidate.fyi/interview-scheduling-software36

lever.co/insights/best-interview-scheduling-software35

bestrecruitingtools.com/blog/best-interview-scheduling-software-enterprise-202625

goodtime.io/blog/talent-operations/best-interview-scheduling-software25

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/interview-scheduling-software22

cal.com/blog/best-interview-scheduling-software19

fluentbooking.com/articles/best-interview-scheduling-software19

hiretruffle.com/blog/interview-scheduling-tools18

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 candidate.fyi'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 candidate.fyi, 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 candidate.fyi 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.