HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Workleap · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Workleap

9Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

6 of 12Models named it

2Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.1, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Workleap was named 2 times in 360 feedback and 1 other category, where Lattice led with 40%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market62 of 77

under the label threshold

Enterprise31 of 50

under the label threshold

In 360 feedback · 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 Workleap 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
360 feedback	Performance and talent management	0%	62 of 77	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 40%
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	0%	128 of 189	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 18%

Movement

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

Model	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1
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	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative9 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Workleap, over the 9 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Workleap was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Lattice6 of 91Not in the top three

Small Improvements4 of 90Not in the top three

Effy AI3 of 91Not in the top three

15Five3 of 90Not in the top three

Pave3 of 90Not in the top three

Betterworks2 of 92Not in the top three

Comprehensive2 of 91Not in the top three

Culture Amp2 of 91Not in the top three

Workday2 of 91Not in the top three

Dayforce2 of 90Not 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 Workleap. 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 9 of the 9 answers that named Workleap and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

peoplemanagingpeople.com5

effy.ai4

betterworks.com3

comprehensive.io3

engagedly.com3

forbes.com3

peoplegoal.com3

workhuman.com3

workleap.comYour site3

capterra.com2

Twenty-nine of the thirty-two domain citations in answers naming Workleap came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

betterworks.com/magazine/best-performance-management-software3

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software3

forbes.com/advisor/business/software/best-performance-management-software3

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-compensation-management-software3

effy.ai/blog/performance-management-software-for-small-business2

hibob.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software2

okrstool.com/blog/performance-management-software2

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/performance-management-tools2

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 Workleap'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 Workleap, 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 workleap.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.