HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Horizons · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Horizons

3Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

2 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.1, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Horizons was named 2 times in Global payroll, where Deel led with 22%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market56 of 66

under the label threshold

Enterprise46 of 54

under the label threshold

In global payroll · 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 Horizons 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
Global payroll and employer of record	Core HR and payroll	0%	56 of 66	50%	2	under 10 labels · led by Deel at 22%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	1
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	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Good alternative if Columbus unavailable in specific countries.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Global payroll · 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.

“described as leaner tools that may trade off coverage depth or support quality for lower cost” Perplexity Sonar · Global payroll · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Horizons, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Horizons was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

RecruitGo3 of 30Not in the top three

Agile HRO2 of 30Not in the top three

Native Teams2 of 30Not in the top three

Skuad2 of 30Not in the top three

Hire with Columbus1 of 31Not in the top three

ADP1 of 30Not in the top three

Deel1 of 30Not in the top three

Gusto1 of 30Not in the top three

Insperity1 of 30Not in the top three

Justworks1 of 30Not 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 Horizons. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named Horizons and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

eorhq.com3

hrstacks.com3

peorient.com3

remotepeople.com3

tarmack.com3

asianetnews.com2

boundlesshq.com2

deel.com2

employsome.com2

ews-limited.com2

Twenty-five of the twenty-five domain citations in answers naming Horizons came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

peorient.com/blog/best-eor-services-for-startups3

tarmack.com/blog/cheapest-employer-of-record-solutions3

asianetnews.com/finance/employer-of-record-services2

boundlesshq.com/blog/how-to-avoid-hidden-eor-fees2

deel.com/blog/employer-of-record-risks-and-how-to-avoid-them2

employsome.com/employer-of-record/best-eor2

eorhq.com/compare/best-eor-for-consulting-firms2

ews-limited.com/best-eor-partner-2026-eor-mistakes-to-avoid2

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 Horizons'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 Horizons, 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 horizons.ai 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.