Every category where a model named Qooper 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
Mentoring software	Learning and development	0%	13 of 55	0%	30	accepted challenger
Succession planning	Performance and talent management	0%	31 of 99	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 31%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct25 labels4

Paraphrase20 labels4

Comparative33 labels11not counted in share

Budget-constrained12 labels3

Scale-constrained21 labels3

Negative7 labels3not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative118 labels in all, every segment counted; 14 of the 28 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.

“Qooper handles matching, scheduling, goals, and reporting, and it plugs into the HR systems a company already runs. It scales from a small pilot to a company-wide program” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Mentoring software · comparative prompt · first choice

“if you are looking to tie mentoring closely to your sales enablement or structured leadership curriculum, Qooper\u2019s milestone tracking is worth the slightly higher setup effort” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Mentoring software · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Highly recommended if your succession strategy relies heavily on mentorship, career paths, and internal development programs.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Succession planning · scale prompt · alternative

“Qooper — Best if you want a more "all-in-one" platform with the deepest AI matching and integrations” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Mentoring software · paraphrase 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 Qooper, over the 118 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Qooper was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Together96 of 11821Not in the top three

MentorcliQ90 of 11815Not in the top three

Chronus84 of 11812Not in the top three

Mentorloop64 of 11813Not in the top three

Ten Thousand Coffees38 of 1181Not in the top three

PushFar34 of 11811Not in the top three

Mentorgain24 of 1184Not in the top three

Guider23 of 1180Not in the top three

ADPList18 of 1180Not in the top three

MentorCruise15 of 1180Not 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 Qooper. 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 105 of the 118 answers that named Qooper and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

qooper.ioYour site89

chronus.com70

brancher.com.au63

gartner.com59

togetherplatform.com48

mentorgain.com46

mentorcliq.com45

guideflow.com43

mentorcity.com40

g2.com36

450 of the 539 domain citations in answers naming Qooper came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

chronus.com/blog/top-mentoring-platforms62

brancher.com.au/blog/best-mentoring-software59

gartner.com/reviews/market/mentoring-software59

qooper.io/blog/best-enterprise-mentoring-software38

qooper.io/blog/mentoring-platforms-for-large-companies-and-global-organizations38

guideflow.com/blog/mentoring-software35

mentorcity.com/best-enterprise-mentoring-software35

growthmentor.com/blog/online-mentoring-platforms-software32

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 Qooper'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 Qooper, 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 qooper.io 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.