Every category where a model named Google for Jobs 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
Job advertising and distribution	Talent acquisition	0%	15 of 109	0%	9	under 10 labels · led by JobTarget at 21%

Movement

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

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative12 labels4not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative26 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 4 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.

“If you want to bypass advertising fees, ensure your company's careers page is optimized for Google for Jobs.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Job advertising · comparative prompt · alternative

“Focus on one major high-intent channel (like Google for Jobs or Indeed) and one passive channel (like LinkedIn)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Job advertising · negative prompt · alternative

“Use Google for Jobs as a free supplement if you invest in structured career page data.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Job advertising · comparative prompt · alternative

“Google for Jobs: Free if your site uses structured data.” Grok 4.1 Fast · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Google for Jobs, over the 26 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Google for Jobs was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Indeed24 of 268Not in the top three

LinkedIn20 of 262Not in the top three

ZipRecruiter18 of 260Not in the top three

Dice11 of 260Not in the top three

CareerBuilder10 of 260Not in the top three

Glassdoor10 of 260Not in the top three

Craigslist9 of 260Not in the top three

Handshake9 of 260Not in the top three

Monster9 of 260Not in the top three

LinkedIn Jobs6 of 263Not 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 Google for Jobs. 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 19 of the 26 answers that named Google for Jobs and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com10

noon.ai10

reddit.com9

pin.com8

bestjobsearchapps.com7

firsthr.app7

easyapply.com6

linkedin.com6

money.com6

uschamber.com6

Seventy-five of the seventy-five domain citations in answers naming Google for Jobs came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

noon.ai/blog/articles/143-best-job-posting-sites10

firsthr.app/compare/hiring/job-boards7

easyapply.com/blog/best-job-boards-small-business6

money.com/best-job-posting-sites-for-employers6

uschamber.com/co/run/human-resources/job-posting-sites-small-businesses6

joinhomebase.com/blog/best-job-posting-sites-for-employers5

findcandidatesforjobs.com/sourcing/job-boards4

hiretruffle.com/blog/indeed-alternatives4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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 Google for Jobs'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 Google for Jobs, 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 google.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.