HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Jobber · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Jobber

10Judge labels

2First choices

1Negative labels

6 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Jobber was named 1 time in Workforce scheduling, where Deputy led with 26%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business33 of 85

under the label threshold

Mid-market43 of 94

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In workforce 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 Jobber 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
Workforce scheduling	Core HR and payroll	0%	43 of 94	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Deputy at 26%

Movement

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

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase5 labels2

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative10 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“Best for small-to-mid field-service crews” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Workforce scheduling · direct 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 Jobber, over the 10 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Jobber was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Connecteam7 of 102Not in the top three

Deputy4 of 101Not in the top three

Housecall Pro3 of 100Not in the top three

When I Work3 of 100Not in the top three

Acuity Scheduling2 of 100Not in the top three

Workforce.com2 of 100Not in the top three

Calendly1 of 101Not in the top three

Homebase1 of 101Not in the top three

MangoApps1 of 101Not in the top three

WorkJam1 of 101Not 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 Jobber. 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 8 of the 10 answers that named Jobber and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

guideflow.com7

connecteam.com5

learn.g2.com5

g2.com4

peoplemanagingpeople.com4

arrivy.com3

beltstack.com3

capterra.com3

mangoapps.com3

softwareadvice.com3

Forty of the forty domain citations in answers naming Jobber came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

learn.g2.com/best-field-service-management-software5

g2.com/compare/connecteam-vs-jobber3

guideflow.com/blog/deskless-workforce-software3

guideflow.com/blog/workforce-management-software3

truereviewnow.com/top-10-mobile-workforce-apps-features-pros-cons-comparison3

zapier.com/blog/best-employee-scheduling-software3

arrivy.com/blog/best-mobile-workforce-management-software2

beltstack.com/field-service/compare/connecteam-vs-jobber2

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 Jobber'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 Jobber, 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 jobber.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.