Every category where a model named PeoplePerHour 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
Internal talent marketplace	Performance and talent management	0%	127 of 129	62%	8	under 10 labels · led by Fuel50 at 26%
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	0%	173 of 189	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 18%
Skills intelligence	Performance and talent management	0%	126 of 162	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by TalentGuard at 19%

Movement

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

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

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

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative9 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative15 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 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.

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.

“cluttered with inactive clients and listings that never result in hired work” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Internal talent marketpl · negative prompt · hard negative

“Users report poor experiences with freelancers here, low quality work” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Internal talent marketpl · negative prompt · hard negative

“PeoplePerHour - 0-1 out of 10” MiniMax M2.5 · Compensation management · negative prompt · hard negative

“Confusing 20%+ fees, inconsistent vetting, irrelevant proposals, and scope creep complaints. Frequently listed as a platform to skip” Grok 4.1 Fast · Internal talent marketpl · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as PeoplePerHour, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PeoplePerHour was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Fiverr25 of 252Not in the top three

Upwork24 of 257Not in the top three

Freelancer.com21 of 250Not in the top three

Toptal16 of 255Not in the top three

Guru10 of 251Not in the top three

Contra9 of 250Not in the top three

Gun.io4 of 251Not in the top three

Craigslist4 of 250Not in the top three

Hubstaff Talent4 of 250Not in the top three

Lemon.io3 of 251Not 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 PeoplePerHour. 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 22 of the 25 answers that named PeoplePerHour and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

awesomic.com10

g2.com10

reddit.com9

freelancepicks.net8

linkedin.com7

upwork.com7

lemon.io6

outsourceaccelerator.com6

fiverr.com5

gartner.com5

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

Pages cited

awesomic.com/blog/ultimate-list-talent-marketplaces-for-businesses-in-20257

freelancepicks.net/blog/freelance-platforms-comparison-2026-upwork-fiverr-toptal-guru-peop6

outsourceaccelerator.com/articles/upwork-and-fiverr-scams-and-how-to-avoid-them6

gartner.com/reviews/market/internal-talent-marketplaces5

cotocus.com/blog/top-10-workforce-marketplace-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison4

fastlancer.org/en/fastlancer-blog/freelance-platforms4

lemon.io/blog/best-freelancing-websites4

painonsocial.com/blog/freelance-platform-complaints-reddit4

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 PeoplePerHour'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 PeoplePerHour, 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 peopleperhour.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.