Every category where a model named SalaryCube 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	4%	5 of 144	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	3%	11 of 189	0%	11	accepted challenger
Pay equity	Compensation and total rewards	0%	23 of 60	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Syndio at 17%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SalaryCube 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 SalaryCube 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	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	4	1	5
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	2	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	2	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	2	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

Direct14 labels3

Paraphrase6 labels1

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained6 labelsNone

Scale-constrained8 labels1

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative44 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 5 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.

“SalaryCube stands out as the best overall choice due to its real-time data, affordability, and strong fit for US-based mid-market organizations” Mistral Small · Compensation benchmarkin · direct prompt · first choice

“SalaryCube is often recommended as the strongest option for compensation planning” Mistral Small · Compensation management · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“the top recommendations are SalaryCube and Aeqium” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Compensation management · direct prompt · first choice

“I'd suggest starting with Payscale or SalaryCube” Kimi K2 · Compensation benchmarkin · direct prompt · first choice

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 SalaryCube, over the 43 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SalaryCube was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pave23 of 435Not in the top three

Payscale23 of 435Not in the top three

Mercer14 of 432Not in the top three

Radford13 of 433Not in the top three

beqom12 of 432Not in the top three

Ravio12 of 431Not in the top three

Salary.com11 of 431Not in the top three

Syndio10 of 433Not in the top three

Comprehensive9 of 436Not in the top three

Aeqium9 of 431Not 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 SalaryCube. 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 41 of the 43 answers that named SalaryCube and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

salarycube.comYour site28

comprehensive.io22

gartner.com21

ravio.com21

peoplemanagingpeople.com18

guideflow.com17

worldmetrics.org16

g2.com14

hrtechsaas.com12

captivateiq.com11

152 of the 180 domain citations in answers naming SalaryCube came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software12

gartner.com/reviews/market/pay-equity-software11

hibob.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software11

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-pay-equity-software11

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-benchmarking-data-sources10

deel.com/blog/10-compensation-management-systems-mid-size-companies10

gartner.com/reviews/market/compensation-management-software10

learn.g2.com/best-compensation-management-software9

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 SalaryCube'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 SalaryCube, 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 salarycube.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.