Index › Vendors › PeopleSoft · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

PeopleSoft

6Judge labels

0First choices

6Negative labels

3 of 12Models named it

2Categories

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. PeopleSoft was named 2 times in Applicant tracking syste and 1 other category, where Greenhouse led with 47%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market41 of 50

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In applicant tracking syste · 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 PeopleSoft 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
Applicant tracking systems	Talent acquisition	0%	41 of 50	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Greenhouse at 47%
Benefits administration	Core HR and payroll	0%	44 of 54	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by PlanSource at 23%

Movement

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative5 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Frequently mentioned alongside the above as problematic” MiniMax M2.5 · Applicant tracking syste · negative prompt · hard negative

“avoid the complexity of enterprise suites like Workday or PeopleSoft” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Benefits administration · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as PeopleSoft, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PeopleSoft was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

BambooHR3 of 50Not in the top three

Workday3 of 50Not in the top three

Rippling2 of 51Not in the top three

Gusto2 of 50Not in the top three

SAP SuccessFactors2 of 50Not in the top three

ADP1 of 50Not in the top three

ADP Workforce Now1 of 50Not in the top three

Asana1 of 50Not in the top three

Betterworks1 of 50Not in the top three

Centivo1 of 50Not 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 PeopleSoft. 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 5 answers that named PeopleSoft and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

linkedin.com2

selectsoftwarereviews.com2

aerospike.com1

appintent.com1

applicantz.io1

betterworks.com1

blog.supportfinity.com1

business.com1

dashdevs.com1

evalflow.com1

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

Pages cited

aerospike.com/blog/vendor-lock-in1

appintent.com/software/human-resources/360-feedback1

applicantz.io/how-to-stay-eeoc-compliant-with-your-ats1

betterworks.com/magazine/best-360-degree-feedback-tools1

blog.supportfinity.com/most-common-recruitment-problems-with-workday-successfactors-oracle1

business.com/articles/360-feedback1

business.com/articles/360-feedback-tools1

dashdevs.com/blog/how-to-avoid-vendor-lock-in-traps1

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 PeopleSoft'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 PeopleSoft, 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.