HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › PeopleHR · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

PeopleHR

4Judge 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. PeopleHR was named 2 times in HR AI assistants, where Workativ Assistant led with 12%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business33 of 105

under the label threshold

Mid-market17 of 119

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In hr ai assistants · 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 PeopleHR 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
HR AI assistants	Onboarding and employee experience	2%	17 of 119	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Workativ Assistant at 12%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for PeopleHR 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 PeopleHR 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	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labels1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

“Gusto or PeopleHR are particularly well-suited” Claude Haiku 4.5 · HR AI assistants · budget prompt · first choice

“Widely recognized as one of the best budget-friendly HRIS platforms for small and mid-sized businesses.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · HR AI assistants · budget 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 PeopleHR, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PeopleHR was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

BambooHR3 of 41Not in the top three

Gusto3 of 41Not in the top three

Workativ Assistant2 of 40Not in the top three

ChatGPT1 of 41Not in the top three

Claude1 of 41Not in the top three

Google NotebookLM1 of 41Not in the top three

MeBeBot1 of 41Not in the top three

AI HR Pilot1 of 40Not in the top three

Factorial1 of 40Not in the top three

Google Gemini1 of 40Not 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 PeopleHR. 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 3 of the 4 answers that named PeopleHR and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gusto.com3

hibob.com2

kvistly.com2

moveworks.com2

sanalabs.com2

softr.io2

althire.ai1

chatling.ai1

firsthr.app1

g2.com1

Seventeen of the seventeen domain citations in answers naming PeopleHR came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gusto.com/resources/guides/best-ai-hr-tools3

hibob.com/blog/best-hr-ai-software-tools2

kvistly.com/blog/best-ai-tools-for-hr2

moveworks.com/us/en/resources/blog/best-ai-assistants-for-hr-efficiency2

sanalabs.com/agents-blog/hr-ai-agents-work-assistants2

softr.io/blog/best-ai-tools-for-hr2

althire.ai/feeds/blog/best-ai-tools-hr1

chatling.ai/blog/best-hr-ai-chatbots1

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 PeopleHR'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 PeopleHR, 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 peoplehr.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.