HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › GoodTime · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Ranked

GoodTime

135Judge labels

29First choices

30Negative labels

12 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.

Best standing

56% in Interview scheduling for enterprise buyers

Rank 5 of 72 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger

2 of 12 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 24% of its 45 labels there were negative.

By buyer segmentAn enterprise product: leader at enterprise, not named at small business.

Small business70 of 71

criticized challenger

In interview scheduling · 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 GoodTime 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
Interview scheduling	Talent acquisition	9%	5 of 72	24%	45	accepted challenger
AI recruiting assistants	Talent acquisition	0%	27 of 84	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by GoPerfect at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for GoodTime 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 GoodTime 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	1	1	0	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	1	2	0	1	4
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1	3	5
Perplexity Sonar	0	3	1	1	5
Grok 4.1 Fast	3	0	0	2	5
Mistral Small	1	2	0	0	3
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	1	2	6
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	2	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	3	0	1	5
Kimi K2	2	1	1	0	4
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	2	0	4
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	1	1	4

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

Direct26 labels12

Paraphrase10 labels3

Comparative39 labels15not counted in share

Budget-constrained18 labels8

Scale-constrained19 labels6

Negative23 labels5not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative135 labels in all, every segment counted; 29 of the 49 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.

“Choose GoodTime if you have a dedicated recruiting team and want to automate the administrative side of interviewing” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Interview scheduling · comparative prompt · first choice

“GoodTime is the top choice for enterprises whose scheduling challenge extends beyond simple booking” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Interview scheduling · comparative prompt · first choice

“Best overall for mid-market recruiting teams: GoodTime if you run multi-interviewer panels” GPT-5.4 mini · Interview scheduling · direct prompt · first choice

“Differentiator: The gold standard for high-volume, complex multi-panel coordination at scale” Kimi K2 · Interview scheduling · comparative prompt · first choice

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.

“Avoid ATS-style recruiting platforms like Breezy HR, Workable, or GoodTime if budget is tight” Perplexity Sonar · Interview scheduling · budget prompt · hard negative

“Enterprise, quote-only, often thousands per month — avoid these on a limited budget” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Interview scheduling · budget prompt · hard negative

“Frequent reports of bugs like missing time slots, crashes, slow performance, calendar sync glitches, and timezone issues.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Interview scheduling · negative prompt · soft negative

“Some users report frequent bugs related to calendar syncing and occasional unresponsiveness in customer support.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Interview scheduling · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as GoodTime, over the 135 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and GoodTime was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Calendly105 of 13529Not in the top three

ModernLoop63 of 1356Not in the top three

candidate.fyi53 of 13510Not in the top three

Paradox52 of 1350Not in the top three

Lever43 of 1354Not in the top three

Greenhouse38 of 1357Not in the top three

YouCanBookMe33 of 1352Not in the top three

VidCruiter28 of 1350Not in the top three

HireVue23 of 1350Not in the top three

Ashby21 of 1351Not 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 GoodTime. 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 115 of the 135 answers that named GoodTime and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

candidate.fyi72

lever.co68

selectsoftwarereviews.com60

goodtime.ioYour site59

hiretruffle.com58

cal.com47

bestrecruitingtools.com45

metaview.ai43

fluentbooking.com33

lunacal.ai30

456 of the 515 domain citations in answers naming GoodTime came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

lever.co/insights/best-interview-scheduling-software68

candidate.fyi/interview-scheduling-software57

hiretruffle.com/blog/interview-scheduling-tools47

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/interview-scheduling-software45

goodtime.io/blog/talent-operations/best-interview-scheduling-software44

cal.com/blog/best-interview-scheduling-software40

metaview.ai/resources/blog/automated-interview-scheduling-tools37

bestrecruitingtools.com/blog/best-interview-scheduling-software-enterprise-202633

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as GoodTime

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

GoodTime (Meet module) 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 GoodTime'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 GoodTime, 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 goodtime.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.