Every category where a model named Figures 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	0%	36 of 189	0%	16	accepted challenger
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	25 of 144	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%
Pay equity	Compensation and total rewards	0%	29 of 60	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Syndio at 17%

Movement

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

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

Direct10 labels1

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative21 labelsNone

Budget-constrained6 labels1

Scale-constrained11 labels1

Negative5 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative61 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 5 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.

“(e.g., Pave, Ravio, or Figures)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · first choice

“A strong low-friction entry for HR teams that want approval-controlled planning outputs with repeatable reporting.” Llama 4 Maverick · Compensation management · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“250–5,000 typically benefit from purpose-built platforms like Figures or Pave” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Compensation management · comparative prompt · alternative

“Top for European/global teams and compliance (e.g., EU Pay Transparency)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Compensation management · comparative 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 Figures, over the 56 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Figures was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pave37 of 5619Not in the top three

Payscale29 of 563Not in the top three

Ravio23 of 560Not in the top three

Syndio18 of 561Not in the top three

beqom16 of 564Not in the top three

Gusto15 of 565Not in the top three

PayAnalytics14 of 563Not in the top three

Salary.com12 of 561Not in the top three

Mercer12 of 560Not in the top three

BambooHR11 of 561Not 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 Figures. 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 43 of the 56 answers that named Figures and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com30

peoplemanagingpeople.com23

worldmetrics.org23

figures.hrYour site19

guideflow.com18

compensationtools.net14

comprehensive.io14

pay-equity-software.com14

ravio.com13

soteriahr.com13

162 of the 181 domain citations in answers naming Figures came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/pay-equity-software18

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-pay-equity-software15

compensationtools.net/best-pay-equity-software13

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software13

pay-equity-software.com/tools13

figures.hr/post/comp-management-software12

gartner.com/reviews/market/compensation-management-software12

soteriahr.com/pay-equity-analysis-software12

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Figures

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

Figures.hr 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 Figures'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 Figures, 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 figures.hr 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.