Every category where a model named Cube 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
Workforce planning	Workforce planning and analytics	0%	21 of 89	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by ChartHop at 31%

Movement

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

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase6 labelsNone

Comparative2 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative16 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

“Finance-led planning | Spreadsheet-native (Excel/Sheets) with AI insights... Strong mid-market fit.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Workforce planning · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Real-time sync from HRIS, lets you model from Excel/Google Sheets with instant P&L impact.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Workforce planning · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Choose a structured template (like Cube\u2019s) if you have a $0 budget” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Workforce planning · budget prompt · alternative

“Better bets (high-rated alternatives): Cube, Rippling (4.8/5 G2), ChartHop” Grok 4.1 Fast · Workforce planning · 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 Cube, over the 16 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cube was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ChartHop10 of 162Not in the top three

Anaplan8 of 161Not in the top three

Rippling6 of 162Not in the top three

Workday Adaptive Planning6 of 160Not in the top three

Homebase5 of 162Not in the top three

Visier4 of 160Not in the top three

Connecteam3 of 162Not in the top three

Pigment3 of 160Not in the top three

Vena3 of 160Not in the top three

BambooHR2 of 161Not 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 Cube. 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 15 of the 16 answers that named Cube and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cubesoftware.com14

thrivea.com9

peoplemanagingpeople.com8

guideflow.com7

charthop.com6

learn.g2.com6

rippling.com6

selectsoftwarereviews.com6

g2.com5

lative.ai5

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

Pages cited

cubesoftware.com/blog/workforce-planning-software11

thrivea.com/blog/best-workforce-planning-tools-for-small-businesses9

charthop.com/resource/best-headcount-planning-software6

learn.g2.com/best-workforce-planning-software6

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-workforce-planning-software6

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/workforce-planning-software6

lative.ai/blog/headcount-planning-software5

abacum.ai/blog/best-headcount-workforce-planning-software3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Cube

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

Cube Software 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 Cube'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 Cube, 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 cubeapm.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.