HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Nakisa Workforce Planning · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Nakisa Workforce Planning

5Judge labels

1First choices

1Negative labels

3 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. Nakisa Workforce Planning was named 1 time in Org charts, 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-market68 of 81

under the label threshold

Enterprise9 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 Nakisa Workforce Planning 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%	68 of 81	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by ChartHop at 27%

Movement

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

Model	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	1
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	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 label1

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative1 label1not counted in share

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

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.

“more enterprise-oriented and may be more tool than a mid-sized company needs” GPT-5.4 mini · Org charts · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Nakisa Workforce Planning, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Nakisa Workforce Planning was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Orgvue4 of 51Not in the top three

ChartHop3 of 50Not in the top three

Lucidchart3 of 50Not in the top three

Microsoft Visio3 of 50Not in the top three

OneDirectory3 of 50Not in the top three

OrgChart2 of 51Not in the top three

Ingentis org.manager2 of 50Not in the top three

Organimi1 of 51Not in the top three

Altify1 of 50Not in the top three

Beyond Intranet1 of 50Not 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 Nakisa Workforce Planning. 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 2 of the 5 answers that named Nakisa Workforce Planning and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com2

creately.com1

forbes.com1

g2.com1

guide.orgchartnow.com1

help.orgchartnow.com1

learn.microsoft.com1

myhospitalnow.com1

onedirectory.com1

orgchartstudio.com1

Eleven of the eleven domain citations in answers naming Nakisa Workforce Planning came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/org-chart-software2

guide.orgchartnow.com/sso1

creately.com/reviews/best-org-chart-software1

forbes.com/advisor/business/software/best-org-chart-software1

g2.com/products/organimi/pricing1

g2.com/products/orgchart/pricing1

help.orgchartnow.com/en/topics/sso-configuration.html1

learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity/saas-apps/orgchartnow-tutorial1

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 Nakisa Workforce Planning'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 Nakisa Workforce Planning, 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 nakisa.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.