Every category where a model named OpenComp 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
Pay equity	Compensation and total rewards	7%	5 of 60	0%	9	under 10 labels · led by Syndio at 17%
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	1%	23 of 189	9%	11	accepted challenger
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	73 of 144	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for OpenComp 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 OpenComp 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	2	1	0	0	3
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	1	1	5
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	2	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	2	0	0	3
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	3	0	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	0	1

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

Direct9 labels4

Paraphrase5 labels1

Comparative12 labelsNone

Budget-constrained17 labels2

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative50 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 7 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.

“OpenComp is designed for mid-market companies (200-1,000 employees), especially in tech, and covers the full compensation workflow” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Pay equity · direct prompt · first choice

“OpenComp (Best Overall Value for Budget-Conscious Teams)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Pay equity · budget prompt · first choice

“OpenComp is your best bet due to its free tier” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Pay equity · budget prompt · first choice

“OpenComp is the best overall fit” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compensation management · 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.

“some tools carry annual minimums (e.g., OpenComp at ~$4,500/year” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compensation management · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OpenComp, over the 48 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OpenComp was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pave34 of 4816Not in the top three

Payscale19 of 482Not in the top three

Ravio18 of 482Not in the top three

Aeqium17 of 486Not in the top three

Salary.com17 of 482Not in the top three

Comprehensive16 of 484Not in the top three

Syndio16 of 482Not in the top three

BambooHR14 of 485Not in the top three

Mercer12 of 481Not in the top three

Deel11 of 480Not 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 OpenComp. 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 40 of the 48 answers that named OpenComp and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

peoplemanagingpeople.com29

gartner.com25

g2.com17

guideflow.com16

comprehensive.io15

worldmetrics.org15

ravio.com14

soteriahr.com14

learn.g2.com12

firsthr.app11

168 of the 168 domain citations in answers naming OpenComp came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-pay-equity-software17

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software15

gartner.com/reviews/market/pay-equity-software15

learn.g2.com/best-compensation-management-software12

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-compensation-management-software12

soteriahr.com/pay-equity-analysis-software12

firsthr.app/compare/payroll/compensation-management-tools11

hibob.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software11

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as OpenComp

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

Workleap / OpenComp 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 OpenComp'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 OpenComp, 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 opencomp.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.