Every category where a model named Workable 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
AI recruiting assistants	Talent acquisition	17%	2 of 84	8%	24	accepted challenger
Recruitment marketing and career sites	Talent acquisition	16%	2 of 81	17%	24	accepted challenger
Job advertising and distribution	Talent acquisition	10%	4 of 109	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by JobTarget at 21%
Applicant tracking systems	Talent acquisition	4%	6 of 50	0%	36	accepted challenger
Interview scheduling	Talent acquisition	4%	9 of 72	8%	12	accepted challenger
Recruiting CRM and sourcing	Talent acquisition	2%	10 of 88	0%	11	accepted challenger
Talent intelligence	Performance and talent management	2%	11 of 77	20%	5	under 10 labels · led by Pin at 17%
Employee onboarding	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	74 of 104	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by BambooHR at 29%
Frontline employee apps	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	69 of 97	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Connecteam at 56%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	2	5	1	0	8
GPT-5.4 mini	0	3	1	2	6
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	3	1	0	5
Perplexity Sonar	2	8	1	1	12
Grok 4.1 Fast	6	5	4	3	18
Mistral Small	1	2	3	0	6
DeepSeek V4 Flash	2	10	2	0	14
Llama 4 Maverick	1	2	3	0	6
Qwen 3.7 Flash	2	7	1	0	10
Kimi K2	4	5	2	1	12
GLM 4.7 FlashX	3	5	5	1	14
MiniMax M2.5	2	7	1	0	10

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

Direct59 labels13

Paraphrase93 labels30

Comparative52 labels6not counted in share

Budget-constrained36 labels10

Scale-constrained25 labels1

Negative23 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative288 labels in all, every segment counted; 54 of the 62 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.

“The Best All-in-One Solution: Workable ... Go with Workable. It offers the best balance of price, ease of use, and AI capability” Qwen 3.7 Flash · AI recruiting assistants · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend starting with either Pin (for simplicity and cost-effectiveness) or Workable (for comprehensive features)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · AI recruiting assistants · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend Workable as the default choice because it delivers a polished, branded careers page right out of the box” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Recruitment marketing · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Workable is a battle-tested ATS with a careers page that is best for mid-market companies (50–500 employees)” Llama 4 Maverick · Recruitment marketing · paraphrase 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.

“Avoid ATS-style recruiting platforms like Breezy HR, Workable, or GoodTime if budget is tight” Perplexity Sonar · Interview scheduling · budget prompt · hard negative

“Avoid for tight budgets: Workable ($299+/month)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Recruitment marketing · budget prompt · hard negative

“Be Cautious With ... Users report billing disputes, inflexible features, slow support, and integration failures” Grok 4.1 Fast · Recruitment marketing · negative prompt · soft negative

“lighter-weight and easier to roll out, but it may be less ambitious for deep internal mobility than Eightfold” GPT-5.4 mini · Talent intelligence · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Workable, over the 288 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Workable was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Greenhouse126 of 28830Not in the top three

Lever98 of 2888Not in the top three

Breezy HR91 of 28821Not in the top three

Zoho Recruit83 of 28811Not in the top three

Manatal75 of 28822Compare →

JazzHR75 of 2887Not in the top three

Ashby61 of 2883Not in the top three

Teamtailor43 of 28813Compare →

BambooHR42 of 2883Not in the top three

Phenom38 of 2880Not 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 Workable. 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 246 of the 288 answers that named Workable and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

selectsoftwarereviews.com146

pin.com94

hiretruffle.com84

peoplemanagingpeople.com81

g2.com80

greenhouse.com69

capterra.com62

learn.g2.com58

joveo.com47

jugglehire.com45

766 of the 766 domain citations in answers naming Workable came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/applicant-tracking-systems56

ventureharbour.com/applicant-tracking-systems39

hiretruffle.com/blog/ai-recruiting-software37

learn.g2.com/best-recruitment-marketing-platforms37

pinpointhq.com/insights/best-applicant-tracking-system34

capterra.com/resources/best-applicant-tracking-system32

pin.com/blog/best-applicant-tracking-systems30

greenhouse.com/blog/best-ai-recruiting-software29

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 Workable'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 Workable, 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 workable.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.