HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › CompAnalyst · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

CompAnalyst

24Judge labels

2First choices

3Negative labels

7 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

8 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CompAnalyst was named 8 times in Compensation benchmarkin and 1 other category, where Payscale led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business61 of 170

under the label threshold

Mid-market11 of 144

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In compensation benchmarkin · 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 CompAnalyst 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
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	2%	11 of 144	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	0%	43 of 189	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 18%

Movement

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

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase4 labels1

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained5 labels1

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative24 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“starting with Payscale or CompAnalyst as they offer the best balance of cost, data quality, and relevance” MiniMax M2.5 · Compensation benchmarkin · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Tech-First / Specialized Platforms (Radford, Pave, CompAnalyst, Option Impact)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · scale prompt · alternative

“If you need deeper market data before you plan → start with CompAnalyst” MiniMax M2.5 · Compensation management · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Best survey/market data for defense → CompAnalyst, Radford, or Mercer” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compensation management · 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 CompAnalyst, over the 22 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CompAnalyst was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pave16 of 226Not in the top three

CaptivateIQ11 of 220Not in the top three

beqom10 of 226Not in the top three

Ravio10 of 222Not in the top three

Payscale10 of 220Not in the top three

Comprehensive9 of 221Not in the top three

Qobra7 of 220Not in the top three

Xactly6 of 221Not in the top three

BambooHR6 of 220Not in the top three

Mercer6 of 220Not 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 CompAnalyst. 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 20 of the 22 answers that named CompAnalyst and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

comprehensive.io16

gartner.com14

hibob.com11

guideflow.com8

learn.g2.com8

fitsmallbusiness.com6

bestrecruitingtools.com5

firsthr.app5

ravio.com5

bamboohr.com4

Eighty-two of the eighty-two domain citations in answers naming CompAnalyst came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software15

gartner.com/reviews/market/compensation-management-software14

hibob.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software11

learn.g2.com/best-compensation-management-software8

guideflow.com/blog/compensation-management-software7

bestrecruitingtools.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software-enterprise-20265

firsthr.app/compare/payroll/compensation-management-tools5

fitsmallbusiness.com/best-compensation-management-software5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as CompAnalyst

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

CompAnalyst (SHRM/Salary.com) 2CompAnalyst (Salary.com) 1CompAnalyst (by Salary.com) 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 CompAnalyst'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 CompAnalyst, 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 compa.ai 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.