Index › Vendors › Orgnostic · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Orgnostic

3Judge labels

1First choices

0Negative 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Orgnostic was named 2 times in People analytics, where HiBob led with 15%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business33 of 96

under the label threshold

Mid-market14 of 99

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In people analytics · 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 Orgnostic 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
People analytics	Workforce planning and analytics	2%	14 of 99	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by HiBob at 15%

Movement

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

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 label1not counted in share

Budget-constrained1 label1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 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.

“Orgnostic offers the best balance of turnkey, automated people analytics without the crushing enterprise price tag.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · People analytics · budget prompt · first choice

“🥉 Orgnostic — Best turnkey option for mid-market without analysts” DeepSeek V4 Flash · People analytics · direct prompt · alternative

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 Orgnostic, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Orgnostic was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ChartHop3 of 31Not in the top three

BambooHR3 of 30Not in the top three

Visier3 of 30Not in the top three

Crunchr2 of 31Not in the top three

Culture Amp2 of 30Not in the top three

HiBob2 of 30Not in the top three

Rippling2 of 30Not in the top three

ChatGPT1 of 30Not in the top three

Claude1 of 30Not in the top three

Deel Engage1 of 30Not 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 Orgnostic. 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 3 answers that named Orgnostic and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

eletive.com2

hr.university2

performancereviewssoftware.com2

selectsoftwarereviews.com2

workhuman.com2

agile-hr-analytics.com1

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com1

dupple.com1

eorhq.com1

hrstack.io1

No domain is on file for Orgnostic, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

eletive.com/blog/people-analytics-tools2

hr.university/tools/hr-analytics-software2

performancereviewssoftware.com/software/hr-analytics2

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/analytics-tools2

workhuman.com/blog/people-analytics-software2

agile-hr-analytics.com/top-people-analytics-tools-2026-comparison-guide1

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/tools/10-best-hr-analytics-tools-for-enterprises/133883571

dupple.com/learn/best-hr-analytics-software1

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 Orgnostic'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 Orgnostic, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.