Index › Vendors › EY · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

EY

13Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative 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

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. EY was named 6 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 businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market31 of 144

under the label threshold

Enterprise36 of 134

under the label threshold

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 EY 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	0%	31 of 144	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%
Compliance training	Learning and development	0%	51 of 80	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Traliant at 22%

Movement

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative12 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as EY, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and EY was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Deloitte13 of 134Not in the top three

KPMG13 of 130Not in the top three

Gartner11 of 132Not in the top three

PwC11 of 130Not in the top three

Computer Economics9 of 130Not in the top three

BCG6 of 130Not in the top three

Forrester6 of 130Not in the top three

IDC6 of 130Not in the top three

Bain & Company5 of 130Not in the top three

IMD5 of 130Not 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 EY. 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 13 of the 13 answers that named EY and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

worldmetrics.org12

zipdo.co11

gitnux.org10

gartner.com4

isg-one.com4

ravio.com3

aiopsschool.com2

apqc.org2

benchgecko.ai2

bizlibrary.com2

No domain is on file for EY, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

worldmetrics.org/service/it-benchmarking10

worldmetrics.org/service/benchmarking8

worldmetrics.org/service/corporate-benchmarking8

zipdo.co/service/it-benchmarking8

gitnux.org/service/it-benchmarking6

gitnux.org/service/corporate-benchmarking5

zipdo.co/service/benchmarking5

gartner.com/en/information-technology/research/benchmarking4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as EY

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

EY (Ernst & Young) 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 EY'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 EY, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.