Every category where a model named Microsoft Teams 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
Internal communications and intranet	Onboarding and employee experience	16%	2 of 80	0%	13	accepted challenger
Frontline employee apps	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	94 of 97	56%	16	criticized challenger
Video interviewing	Talent acquisition	0%	16 of 40	20%	5	under 10 labels · led by Spark Hire at 55%
Employee engagement surveys	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	59 of 77	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Culture Amp at 40%
Internal talent marketplace	Performance and talent management	0%	55 of 129	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Fuel50 at 26%
Mentoring software	Learning and development	0%	33 of 55	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Together at 37%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Microsoft Teams 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 Microsoft Teams 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	1	0	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	3	2	3	9
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	2	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	0	2	3
Mistral Small	0	1	1	2	4
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	3	0	0	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	2	0	0	3
Kimi K2	1	0	1	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	0	2	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	0	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

Direct16 labelsNone

Paraphrase32 labels15

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained18 labels1

Scale-constrained8 labelsNone

Negative26 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative110 labels in all, every segment counted; 16 of the 18 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 are currently migrating or building a new infrastructure, go with Microsoft Teams for its stability and built-in video conferencing.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Internal communications · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Start with Microsoft Teams if you're already using Microsoft 365 — the integration benefits and cost efficiency are hard to beat” Kimi K2 · Internal communications · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“For most mid-sized B2B companies, Slack or Microsoft Teams are the safest choices” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Internal communications · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Microsoft Teams for the default, company-wide internal communications platform.” GPT-5.4 mini · Internal communications · paraphrase 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.

“General tools to avoid for pure frontline: Slack/Teams ... low adoption among deskless workers” Grok 4.1 Fast · Frontline employee apps · direct prompt · hard negative

“Microsoft Teams – Harvests 25 data types” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Frontline employee apps · negative prompt · hard negative

“Cons: The mobile interface can feel slightly clunky\u2014like a desktop app adapted for mobile\u2014which sometimes results in lower adoption rates” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Frontline employee apps · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“certain configurations of Microsoft Teams, may require corporate email for sign-on, have limited offline use, or require IT provisioning” Mistral Small · Frontline employee apps · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Microsoft Teams, over the 110 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Microsoft Teams was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Slack69 of 11010Not in the top three

Connecteam44 of 11029Not in the top three

Staffbase36 of 1105Not in the top three

Blink30 of 1102Not in the top three

Beekeeper21 of 1103Not in the top three

Workvivo17 of 1102Not in the top three

Zoom16 of 1101Not in the top three

HireVue13 of 1103Not in the top three

Google Chat13 of 1100Not in the top three

WhatsApp12 of 1100Not 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 Microsoft Teams. 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 74 of the 110 answers that named Microsoft Teams and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

guideflow.com35

joinblink.com30

peoplemanagingpeople.com26

staffbase.com26

mangoapps.com23

changeengine.com17

g2.com17

oak.com16

getzelos.com15

selectsoftwarereviews.com14

219 of the 219 domain citations in answers naming Microsoft Teams came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

joinblink.com/intelligence/best-employee-communication-apps21

staffbase.com/blog/frontline-communication-tools18

changeengine.com/articles/frontline-communication-tools17

mangoapps.com/articles/frontline-communication-platforms-guide14

getzelos.com/best-frontline-employee-apps13

mangoapps.com/articles/best-frontline-communication-software13

redeapp.com/blog/best-employee-communication-apps-frontline-workers13

theprotoolkit.com/best-frontline-employee-communication-software-small-business-202612

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Microsoft Teams

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

Teams 2MS Teams Free 1Microsoft Teams (with SharePoint) 1Microsoft Teams / Google Workspace (Native Tools) 1Microsoft Teams / Slack 1Microsoft Teams Frontline 1Zoom/Teams 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 Microsoft Teams'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 Microsoft Teams, 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 microsoft.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.