HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Mindsmith · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Mindsmith

12Judge labels

0First 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. Mindsmith was named 1 time in Course authoring tools, where Articulate 360 led with 22%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business17 of 87

under the label threshold

Mid-market59 of 86

under the label threshold

Enterprise51 of 80

under the label threshold

In course authoring tools · 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 Mindsmith 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
Course authoring tools	Learning and development	0%	59 of 86	0%	1	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 Mindsmith 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 Mindsmith across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Mention	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	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1
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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative1 label1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative12 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Mindsmith, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Mindsmith was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

iSpring Suite10 of 120Not in the top three

Articulate 3609 of 123Not in the top three

Adobe Captivate9 of 120Not in the top three

Easygenerator8 of 123Not in the top three

Elucidat8 of 120Not in the top three

dominKnow | ONE8 of 120Not in the top three

Articulate Storyline5 of 120Not in the top three

Lectora5 of 120Not in the top three

Articulate Rise 3604 of 121Not in the top three

Coursebox AI4 of 120Not 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 Mindsmith. 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 12 answers that named Mindsmith and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

elearningindustry.com7

colossyan.com6

confirm.com5

easygenerator.com4

gartner.com4

mindsmith.aiYour site4

teachfloor.com3

aigearbase.com2

bestdevops.com2

collab.thehumanco.org2

Thirty-five of the thirty-nine domain citations in answers naming Mindsmith came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

colossyan.com/posts/elearning-authoring-tools-comparison-chart-for-2026-top-10-tools6

confirm.com/blog/elearning-authoring-tools4

gartner.com/reviews/market/elearning-authoring-tools4

mindsmith.ai/3

aigearbase.com/tool/mindsmith2

bestdevops.com/top-10-elearning-authoring-tools-features-pros-cons-comparison2

collab.thehumanco.org/blog/best-elearning-authoring-tools2

complementlearning.ai/en/elearning-authoring-tools-comparison2

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 Mindsmith'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 Mindsmith, 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 mindsmith.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.