HR AI Index
Index Vendors › ThoughtSpot · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

ThoughtSpot

6Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
5 of 12Models named it
1Category
September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.1, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
3 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ThoughtSpot was named 3 times in People analytics, where HiBob led with 15%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In people analytics · 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 ThoughtSpot 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
People analyticsWorkforce planning and analytics0%29 of 990%3under 10 labels · led by HiBob at 15%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ThoughtSpot 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 ThoughtSpot across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00000
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash01001
Kimi K200000
GLM 4.7 FlashX01102
MiniMax M2.500000

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
Paraphrase1 labelNone
Comparative3 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.

“Self-service analytics via natural language search (GenAI).” Qwen 3.7 Flash · People analytics · comparative prompt · alternative
“AI‑powered self‑service: ThoughtSpot” GLM 4.7 FlashX · People analytics · 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 ThoughtSpot, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ThoughtSpot was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Visier6 of 65Not in the top three
Workday People Analytics5 of 60Not in the top three
Crunchr4 of 60Not in the top three
One Model4 of 60Not in the top three
ADP Workforce Now3 of 61Not in the top three
ChartHop3 of 60Not in the top three
Tableau3 of 60Not in the top three
BambooHR2 of 60Not in the top three
Culture Amp2 of 60Not in the top three
Eletive2 of 60Not 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 ThoughtSpot. 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 5 of the 6 answers that named ThoughtSpot and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

thoughtspot.comYour site5
cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com3
eletive.com3
hr.university3
hrbench.com3
leapsome.com3
devopsschool.com2
engagedly.com2
gartner.com2
learn.g2.com2

Twenty-three of the twenty-eight domain citations in answers naming ThoughtSpot came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ThoughtSpot

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

Subscribe to the pack