Every category where a model named Glassdoor 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
Recruitment marketing and career sites	Talent acquisition	2%	17 of 81	25%	4	under 10 labels · led by Teamtailor at 16%
Job advertising and distribution	Talent acquisition	0%	17 of 109	25%	16	criticized challenger
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	0%	188 of 189	82%	11	criticized challenger
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	143 of 144	75%	8	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%
Recruiting CRM and sourcing	Talent acquisition	0%	37 of 88	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Lever at 20%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	3	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	2	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	1	4	6
Mistral Small	0	2	2	2	6
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	0	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1	2
Kimi K2	0	1	0	3	4
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1	2	4
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	3	1	5

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

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative17 labelsNone

Budget-constrained14 labels1

Scale-constrained7 labelsNone

Negative27 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative71 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

“Top Recommendation: Free Tools Combo (LinkedIn, Glassdoor, Indeed)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Recruitment marketing · budget prompt · first choice

“Sites like Indeed, ZipRecruiter, and Glassdoor offer free or low-cost job posting options” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Recruiting CRM · budget prompt · alternative

“Combine it with Pave's free tier or Glassdoor for additional market context” MiniMax M2.5 · Compensation benchmarkin · budget prompt · alternative

“Stick to well-established, reputable job boards ... Glassdoor, and CareerBuilder.” Mistral Small · Job advertising · 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.

“compensation platforms that are mentioned as being potentially problematic include: Salary calculators, recruiter guides, and employee-reported tools (e.g. Glassdoor, Hays)” Llama 4 Maverick · Compensation management · negative prompt · hard negative

“Unverified salary tools like general market-awareness sites and calculators, including examples such as Glassdoor-style tools ... data is self-reported/unverified” Perplexity Sonar · Compensation management · negative prompt · hard negative

“here are compensation platforms you should be cautious about or potentially avoid: ## Platforms with Significant Concerns ### Glassdoor” Kimi K2 · Compensation management · negative prompt · hard negative

“Platforms with Notable Concerns ... Glassdoor ... Forced data collection ... Review manipulation concerns ... Low Trustpilot rating” Kimi K2 · Recruitment marketing · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Glassdoor, over the 68 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Glassdoor was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Indeed44 of 6815Not in the top three

LinkedIn29 of 687Not in the top three

ZipRecruiter26 of 680Not in the top three

Ravio19 of 683Not in the top three

Pave18 of 689Not in the top three

Payscale17 of 681Not in the top three

Levels.fyi16 of 680Not in the top three

Monster16 of 680Not in the top three

Dice15 of 680Not in the top three

Mercer15 of 680Not 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 Glassdoor. 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 54 of the 68 answers that named Glassdoor and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com20

pin.com19

linkedin.com18

ravio.com16

reddit.com14

bestjobsearchapps.com13

noon.ai12

firsthr.app11

fitsmallbusiness.com11

comprehensive.io10

144 of the 144 domain citations in answers naming Glassdoor came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

ravio.com/blog/the-best-tools-for-salary-benchmarking13

noon.ai/blog/articles/143-best-job-posting-sites12

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-benchmarking-data-sources8

hrpaypick.com/salary-benchmarking-small-business8

money.com/best-job-posting-sites-for-employers8

totaldefense.com/security-blog/job-board-safety-guide-how-to-avoid-employment-scams-on-fak8

linkedin.com/posts/fiona-de-villiers_ethical-give-activistsrevealcorruption-activity-742947

pin.com/blog/best-job-posting-sites7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Glassdoor

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

Glassdoor/Payscale (Free Basic) 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 Glassdoor'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 Glassdoor, 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 glassdoor.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.