Index › Vendors › PwC · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

PwC

17Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

6 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

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. PwC was named 7 times in Compensation benchmarkin and 1 other category, where Payscale led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business156 of 170

under the label threshold

Mid-market26 of 144

under the label threshold

Enterprise38 of 134

under the label threshold

In compensation benchmarkin · 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 PwC 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 benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	26 of 144	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%
Compliance training	Learning and development	0%	43 of 80	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Traliant at 22%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for PwC 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 PwC 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	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	1	2
Mistral Small	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1
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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative12 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative17 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.

“2 | PwC | 9.0-9.2 | Market research-focused competitor benchmarking” Grok 4.1 Fast · Compensation benchmarkin · comparative prompt · alternative

“Strong in market positioning, competitor analysis, and operational productivity benchmarking.” Mistral Small · Compensation benchmarkin · 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 PwC, over the 17 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PwC was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Deloitte17 of 175Not in the top three

KPMG14 of 170Not in the top three

Gartner11 of 171Not in the top three

EY11 of 170Not in the top three

Computer Economics10 of 170Not in the top three

BCG8 of 170Not in the top three

NielsenIQ7 of 170Not in the top three

Bain & Company6 of 170Not in the top three

Kantar6 of 170Not in the top three

Forrester5 of 170Not 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 PwC. 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 17 of the 17 answers that named PwC and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

worldmetrics.org16

zipdo.co15

gitnux.org13

ravio.com7

gartner.com5

isg-one.com5

aiopsschool.com3

bizlibrary.com3

hrtechsaas.com3

thehackettgroup.com3

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

Pages cited

worldmetrics.org/service/it-benchmarking12

worldmetrics.org/service/benchmarking11

worldmetrics.org/service/corporate-benchmarking11

gitnux.org/service/it-benchmarking8

zipdo.co/service/it-benchmarking8

gitnux.org/service/corporate-benchmarking7

ravio.com/blog/compensation-benchmarking-companies7

zipdo.co/service/benchmarking7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as PwC

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

PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) 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 PwC'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 PwC, 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.