Every category where a model named Payfactors 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
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	1%	25 of 189	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 18%
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	43 of 144	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	1	2	3
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	0	2
Kimi K2	0	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labels1

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative22 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

“or Payscale Ascent if compensation benchmarking and pay equity are the priority” GPT-5.4 mini · Compensation management · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“indicating a robust solution for those seeking a balance between comprehensive data and cost” Mistral Small · Compensation benchmarkin · direct prompt · alternative

“Payfactors is the industry standard for analytics.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Compensation management · direct prompt · alternative

“Budget-conscious but need statements? → Payfactors” Kimi K2 · Compensation management · comparative 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 Payfactors, over the 19 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Payfactors was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pave13 of 196Not in the top three

beqom9 of 191Not in the top three

Salary.com8 of 190Not in the top three

Ravio7 of 191Not in the top three

Comprehensive6 of 190Not in the top three

Lattice6 of 190Not in the top three

Compease5 of 192Not in the top three

CompAnalyst5 of 191Not in the top three

Deel5 of 191Not in the top three

Payscale5 of 191Not 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 Payfactors. 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 18 of the 19 answers that named Payfactors and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

comprehensive.io13

gartner.com9

learn.g2.com9

figures.hr8

hibob.com7

ravio.com7

firsthr.app6

fitsmallbusiness.com5

aeqium.com4

bamboohr.com4

Seventy-two of the seventy-two domain citations in answers naming Payfactors came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software10

learn.g2.com/best-compensation-management-software9

gartner.com/reviews/market/compensation-management-software8

figures.hr/post/comp-management-software7

hibob.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software7

firsthr.app/compare/payroll/compensation-management-tools6

bamboohr.com/blog/compensation-management-tools4

guideflow.com/blog/compensation-management-software4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Payfactors

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

Payfactors (by Payscale) 1Payfactors (with Pave integration) 1Payscale Ascent / Payfactors 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 Payfactors'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 Payfactors, 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 payfactors.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.