Every category where a model named Workday Compensation 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 management	Compensation and total rewards	0%	132 of 189	33%	9	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 18%

Movement

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

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

Direct9 labels6

Paraphrase9 labels5

Comparative18 labels6not counted in share

Budget-constrained8 labels4

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative10 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative59 labels in all, every segment counted; 15 of the 21 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.

“Best if the company is already standardized on Workday.” Perplexity Sonar · Compensation management · 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.

“Steer clear of enterprise tools like Workday Compensation, beqom, or HRSoft” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Compensation management · budget prompt · hard negative

“they can feel clunky, rigid, and require IT/developer support to customize compared to modern standalone tools” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Compensation management · comparative prompt · soft negative

“avoid Workday unless already on its HCM” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compensation management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Workday Compensation, over the 45 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Workday Compensation was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

beqom40 of 4515Not in the top three

Payscale29 of 450Not in the top three

CaptivateIQ22 of 452Not in the top three

SAP SuccessFactors Compensation21 of 451Not in the top three

Salary.com20 of 450Not in the top three

HRSoft19 of 452Not in the top three

Xactly19 of 451Not in the top three

Pave16 of 454Not in the top three

SAP SuccessFactors12 of 450Not in the top three

CompLogix11 of 451Not 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 Workday Compensation. 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 37 of the 45 answers that named Workday Compensation and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

comprehensive.io24

gartner.com24

darwinbox.com23

guideflow.com21

captivateiq.com17

learn.g2.com17

bestrecruitingtools.com15

g2.com13

ravio.com13

peoplemanagingpeople.com12

179 of the 179 domain citations in answers naming Workday Compensation came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/compensation-management-software24

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software23

darwinbox.com/blog/8-best-compensation-management-software-enterprises23

guideflow.com/blog/compensation-management-software17

learn.g2.com/best-compensation-management-software16

bestrecruitingtools.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software-enterprise-202615

captivateiq.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software13

bettercomp.com/blog/best-enterprise-compensation-management-software-202611

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 Workday Compensation'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 Workday Compensation, 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 workday.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.