Every category where a model named Compport 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 management	Compensation and total rewards	1%	21 of 189	0%	15	accepted challenger
Pay equity	Compensation and total rewards	0%	19 of 60	0%	10	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Direct17 labels2

Paraphrase6 labels4

Comparative21 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained11 labels2

Scale-constrained7 labels1

Negative7 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative69 labels in all, every segment counted; 9 of the 12 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.

“Compport is recommended as best for mid-market scale and is configurable enough to run full cycles without enterprise overhead.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Compensation management · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Choose if you want to modernize compensation planning quickly, your programs are relatively centralized or straightforward” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Compensation management · comparative prompt · alternative

“Compport, QuotaPath, or Everstage are better if you need specialized compensation management” Mistral Small · Compensation management · direct prompt · alternative

“specialized incentive compensation management (ICM) software (like QuotaPath, CaptivateIQ, or Compport)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Compensation management · negative 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 Compport, over the 62 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Compport was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

beqom33 of 624Not in the top three

Payscale30 of 625Not in the top three

Pave24 of 629Not in the top three

HRSoft22 of 622Not in the top three

Syndio21 of 6210Not in the top three

Aeqium21 of 625Not in the top three

Trusaic PayParity17 of 622Not in the top three

CaptivateIQ17 of 621Not in the top three

PayAnalytics16 of 622Not in the top three

Salary.com16 of 620Not 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 Compport. 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 53 of the 62 answers that named Compport and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com39

peoplemanagingpeople.com37

guideflow.com30

compport.comYour site24

worldmetrics.org24

captivateiq.com16

g2.com16

pay-equity-software.com16

soteriahr.com16

ravio.com14

208 of the 232 domain citations in answers naming Compport came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/pay-equity-software28

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-pay-equity-software27

guideflow.com/blog/pay-equity-software20

compport.com/blog/best-pay-equity-software15

gartner.com/reviews/market/compensation-management-software15

pay-equity-software.com/tools15

soteriahr.com/pay-equity-analysis-software15

worldmetrics.org/best/pay-equity-software15

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 Compport'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 Compport, 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 compport.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.