HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Microsoft Word · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Microsoft Word

7Judge labels

0First choices

6Negative labels

5 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.

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Microsoft Word was named 5 times in Org charts and 1 other category, where ChartHop led with 27%. 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-market73 of 81

under the label threshold

Enterprise75 of 90

under the label threshold

In org charts · 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 Microsoft Word 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
Org charts and org design	Workforce planning and analytics	0%	73 of 81	67%	3	under 10 labels · led by ChartHop at 27%
Course authoring tools	Learning and development	0%	83 of 86	100%	2	under 10 labels · led by Articulate 360 at 22%

Movement

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

Model	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	2
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1
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

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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 them for ongoing workforce management.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Org charts · negative prompt · hard negative

“While Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, and basic drawing apps are excellent for making a *one-time* graphic, they are hazardous for managing an active org chart.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Org charts · negative prompt · soft negative

“While you can use Microsoft Word, it is generally cautionary for technical documentation that requires version control or multi-format output” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Course authoring tools · negative prompt · soft negative

“Word is amazing for office docs, but terrible for publishing books or complex reports.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Course authoring tools · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Microsoft Word, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Microsoft Word was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft PowerPoint4 of 70Not in the top three

Lucidchart3 of 71Not in the top three

Miro3 of 71Not in the top three

Microsoft Visio3 of 70Not in the top three

Adobe Captivate2 of 70Not in the top three

Articulate Storyline2 of 70Not in the top three

Canva2 of 70Not in the top three

Excel2 of 70Not in the top three

Google Slides2 of 70Not in the top three

MadCap Flare2 of 70Not 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 Word. 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 4 of the 7 answers that named Microsoft Word and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

clickhelp.com2

elearningindustry.com2

linkedin.com2

technicalwriterhq.com2

adlnet.gov1

adoc-studio.app1

aigrowthagent.co1

atlassian.com1

atomisystems.com1

author-it.com1

Fourteen of the fourteen domain citations in answers naming Microsoft Word came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

clickhelp.com/clickhelp-technical-writing-blog/7-reasons-why-your-help-authoring-tool-isnt2

linkedin.com/pulse/pitfalls-choosing-wrong-authoring-tool-sajitha-jayaprakash-57nkf2

eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37066/1/TAP_Chapter_The_Authoring_Tool_Evaluation_Problem_v4.pdf1

adlnet.gov/assets/uploads/ChoosingAuthoringTools.docx1

adoc-studio.app/blog/choosing-a-documentation-tool1

aigrowthagent.co/articles/best-enterprise-ai-writing-platforms1

atlassian.com/blog/loom/software-documentation-tools1

atomisystems.com/elearning/the-ultimate-guide-to-selecting-business-training-software-20261

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Microsoft Word

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

Microsoft Word's SmartArt feature 1Word 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 Word'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 Word, 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.