HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Vena · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Vena

23Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

10 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

8 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Vena was named 8 times in Workforce planning, where ChartHop led with 31%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business107 of 114

under the label threshold

Mid-market20 of 89

under the label threshold

Enterprise14 of 79

under the label threshold

In workforce planning · 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 Vena 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
Workforce planning	Workforce planning and analytics	0%	20 of 89	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by ChartHop at 31%

Movement

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

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative23 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.

“Pigment / Vena: Excellent if your workforce planning is heavily driven by the Finance team” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Workforce planning · scale prompt · alternative

“Spreadsheet-native planning | Vena” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Workforce planning · 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 Vena, over the 23 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Vena was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Anaplan19 of 236Not in the top three

Workday Adaptive Planning17 of 234Not in the top three

ChartHop9 of 232Not in the top three

Visier9 of 230Not in the top three

Planful8 of 231Not in the top three

Pigment8 of 230Not in the top three

OneStream6 of 232Not in the top three

Oracle Fusion Cloud EPM5 of 232Not in the top three

Jedox5 of 230Not in the top three

BambooHR4 of 230Not 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 Vena. 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 19 of the 23 answers that named Vena and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

peoplemanagingpeople.com15

learn.g2.com12

worldmetrics.org10

guideflow.com8

selectsoftwarereviews.com8

articsledge.com6

lupahire.com6

gartner.com5

hrtechsaas.com5

viewpointanalysis.com5

Eighty of the eighty domain citations in answers naming Vena came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-workforce-planning-software12

learn.g2.com/best-workforce-planning-software10

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/workforce-planning-software8

guideflow.com/blog/workforce-planning-software7

articsledge.com/post/workforce-planning-software6

lupahire.com/blog/best-workforce-planning-software-tools6

hrtechsaas.com/blog/workforce-planning-software5

ag5.com/workforce-planning-tools4

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 Vena'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 Vena, 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 venasolutions.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.