Every category where a model named Fetcher 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
Recruiting CRM and sourcing	Talent acquisition	0%	21 of 88	0%	13	accepted challenger
AI recruiting assistants	Talent acquisition	0%	23 of 84	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by GoPerfect at 19%
HR AI assistants	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	82 of 119	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Workativ Assistant at 12%
Talent intelligence	Performance and talent management	0%	50 of 77	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Pin at 17%

Movement

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

Direct15 labels2

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative20 labelsNone

Budget-constrained9 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative49 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.

“best for lean teams that want curated candidate batches with less manual work” Perplexity Sonar · Recruiting CRM · direct prompt · alternative

“Now offers a free plan and a free trial, making it accessible for startups” Mistral Small · Recruiting CRM · budget prompt · alternative

“For Fast Startup Hiring: Start with Fetcher to automate sourcing” Qwen 3.7 Flash · AI recruiting assistants · comparative prompt · alternative

“Free tiers; ~$100-150/mo paid | AI-powered passive sourcing” Grok 4.1 Fast · Recruiting CRM · budget 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 Fetcher, over the 49 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Fetcher was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Manatal25 of 492Not in the top three

SeekOut25 of 490Not in the top three

Juicebox24 of 493Not in the top three

Gem23 of 495Not in the top three

hireEZ20 of 492Not in the top three

Pin19 of 4910Not in the top three

LinkedIn Recruiter17 of 490Not in the top three

Eightfold AI13 of 491Not in the top three

Workable12 of 490Not in the top three

HireVue11 of 490Not 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 Fetcher. 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 44 of the 49 answers that named Fetcher and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

selectsoftwarereviews.com33

pin.com27

hiretruffle.com23

metaview.ai19

greenhouse.com14

leonar.app14

firsthr.app12

lindy.ai12

peoplemanagingpeople.com12

intervue.io11

177 of the 177 domain citations in answers naming Fetcher came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/best-candidate-sourcing-tools23

leonar.app/blog/best-talent-sourcing-platforms14

greenhouse.com/blog/best-ai-recruiting-software12

lindy.ai/blog/best-ai-recruiting-tools-202412

metaview.ai/resources/blog/candidate-sourcing-tools12

pin.com/blog/candidate-sourcing-tools12

intervue.io/blog/best-candidate-sourcing-software11

pin.com/blog/candidate-sourcing-software11

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Fetcher

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

Fetcher (now part of Gem) 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 Fetcher'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 Fetcher, 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 fetcher.io 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.