Every category where a model named Pigment 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
Workforce planning	Workforce planning and analytics	0%	15 of 89	0%	13	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

Direct12 labels2

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative13 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative39 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 3 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.

“Known for its flexible spreadsheet-like interface that handles complex multi-dimensional modeling” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Workforce planning · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Pigment / Vena: Excellent if your workforce planning is heavily driven by the Finance team” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Workforce planning · scale prompt · alternative

“A newer-generation planning platform that's simpler than enterprise tools like Anaplan” Kimi K2 · Workforce planning · direct prompt · alternative

“Modern, browser-native challenger to Anaplan; strong CHRO/CFO adoption” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Workforce planning · 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 Pigment, over the 39 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Pigment was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Anaplan32 of 399Not in the top three

Workday Adaptive Planning31 of 395Not in the top three

ChartHop22 of 3911Not in the top three

Visier16 of 390Not in the top three

Rippling15 of 393Not in the top three

Planful13 of 392Not in the top three

Orgvue10 of 390Not in the top three

BambooHR9 of 391Not in the top three

HiBob8 of 390Not in the top three

Vena8 of 390Not 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 Pigment. 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 30 of the 39 answers that named Pigment and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

guideflow.com17

peoplemanagingpeople.com17

learn.g2.com16

hrtechsaas.com11

selectsoftwarereviews.com11

worldmetrics.org11

articsledge.com10

coefficient.io9

cubesoftware.com8

g2.com8

118 of the 118 domain citations in answers naming Pigment came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

guideflow.com/blog/workforce-planning-software13

learn.g2.com/best-workforce-planning-software12

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-workforce-planning-software12

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/workforce-planning-software11

articsledge.com/post/workforce-planning-software10

hrtechsaas.com/blog/workforce-planning-software10

coefficient.io/cfo-resources/strategic-workforce-planning-tools9

lupahire.com/blog/best-workforce-planning-software-tools8

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 Pigment'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 Pigment, 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 pigment.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.