Index › Products › StaffCop · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

StaffCop

10Judge labels

0First choices

7Negative labels

7 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. StaffCop was named 4 times in Employee monitoring, where ActivTrak led with 33%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business72 of 75

under the label threshold

Mid-market75 of 75

under the label threshold

Enterprise35 of 73

under the label threshold

In employee monitoring · 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 StaffCop 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	Since September 2026
Employee monitoring	Workforce planning and analytics	0%	75 of 75	100%	4	under 10 labels · led by ActivTrak at 33%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for StaffCop yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated StaffCop across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

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	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative10 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.

“Cited by privacy advocates for aggressive data collection practices” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Employee monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

“Its covert nature has raised serious ethical and legal red flags.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Employee monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

“Extensive surveillance capabilities” Kimi K2 · Employee monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

“cited for real-time activity tracking, screenshots, keystroke logging and screen recording” Muse Glimmer 30B · Employee monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as StaffCop, over the 10 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and StaffCop was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Teramind10 of 102Not among the top eight

Hubstaff8 of 100Not among the top eight

ActivTrak7 of 101Not among the top eight

InterGuard5 of 100Not among the top eight

CurrentWare4 of 101Not among the top eight

Veriato4 of 101Not among the top eight

CleverControl4 of 100Not among the top eight

Time Doctor4 of 100Not among the top eight

WorkTime3 of 102Not among the top eight

Toggl Track3 of 101Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 StaffCop. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 10 of the 10 answers that named StaffCop and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

currentware.com6

forbes.com6

insightful.io6

teramind.co6

toggl.com6

worktime.com6

computerworld.com5

eff.org5

employee-monitoring.net5

traqq.com5

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

Pages cited

forbes.com/advisor/business/software/best-employee-monitoring-software6

toggl.com/blog/employee-surveillance6

computerworld.com/article/1638768/the-new-normal-when-work-from-home-means-the-boss-is-wat5

eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/inside-invasive-secretive-bossware-tracking-workers5

traqq.com/blog/best-employee-monitoring-software5

abcnews.com/US/employee-monitoring-extends-workers-homes-health-civil-rights/story4

apploye.com/blog/what-is-bossware4

currentware.com/blog/best-employee-monitoring-software4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where StaffCop stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 30 a month (“staffcop”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 0 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 75 of 75 in employee monitoring

Segment leader

33%

ActivTrak

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 10 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

Follow StaffCop

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

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 StaffCop'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 StaffCop, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for StaffCop by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where StaffCop is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name StaffCop, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.