HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Draup · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Draup

17Judge labels

0First choices

8Negative labels

9 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

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Draup was named 7 times in Talent intelligence, where Pin led with 17%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business76 of 84

under the label threshold

Mid-market48 of 77

under the label threshold

Enterprise52 of 67

under the label threshold

In talent intelligence · 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 Draup 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
Talent intelligence	Performance and talent management	0%	48 of 77	29%	7	under 10 labels · led by Pin at 17%

Movement

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

Model	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	2	0	2
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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative17 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Draup reviews note a heavy reliance on external consultants for proper adoption, which adds to the total cost of ownership” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Talent intelligence · negative prompt · soft negative

“priced for large orgs with dedicated TA ops teams... Probably overkill for mid-market.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Talent intelligence · direct prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Draup, over the 17 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Draup was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Eightfold AI17 of 174Not in the top three

Beamery15 of 170Not in the top three

Gloat13 of 170Not in the top three

SeekOut12 of 170Not in the top three

LinkedIn Talent Insights10 of 170Not in the top three

Phenom10 of 170Not in the top three

Gem9 of 172Not in the top three

Findem9 of 170Not in the top three

Lightcast9 of 170Not in the top three

Pin8 of 172Not 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 Draup. 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 17 of the 17 answers that named Draup and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

pin.com13

jobspipe.dev12

metaview.ai11

xobin.com11

learn.g2.com10

g2.com9

guideflow.com9

hiretruffle.com9

hrtechsaas.com8

gitnux.org7

Ninety-nine of the ninety-nine domain citations in answers naming Draup came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

jobspipe.dev/talent-intelligence-platforms12

metaview.ai/resources/blog/talent-intelligence-platforms11

pin.com/blog/talent-intelligence-platforms11

xobin.com/blog/best-talent-intelligence-platforms11

learn.g2.com/best-talent-intelligence-software10

hiretruffle.com/blog/talent-intelligence-platforms9

pin.com/blog/talent-intelligence-software9

g2.com/categories/talent-intelligence8

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 Draup'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 Draup, 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 draup.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.