Every category where a model named APQC 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	Since September 2026
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	22 of 148	0%	10	accepted challenger	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

Movement

Since September 2026, APQC held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 13 points.

Best category · Compensation benchmarkin · by segment

Small businessnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

0%from 0% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 37 of 143, unchanged

Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

0%from 0% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 88 → 20 of 138

Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

0%from 0% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 27 → 16 of 115

All categories · Mid-market

Category	September 2026	Now	Change	Reading	Rank
Compensation benchmarkin	0%	0%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.	Within noise	Rank 88 → 22 of 148

Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.

The floor is 13 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions

By model

How each model treated APQC across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	1	0	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	0	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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative15 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative6 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative21 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 2 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.

“Prefer providers that disclose validation and methodology clearly, such as APQC for validated benchmark data and standardized measures” Perplexity Sonar · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · first choice

“Specializes in peer benchmarking with documented methodology, producing normalized, decision-ready reports.” Mistral Small · Compensation benchmarkin · comparative prompt · alternative

“Choose APQC when: You want standardized, documented methodology without full consultancy.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Compensation benchmarkin · comparative prompt · alternative

“APQC works better when you run recurring, disciplined metric alignment across functions.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Compensation benchmarkin · 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 APQC, over the 21 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and APQC was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Gartner16 of 210Not among the top eight

Deloitte14 of 214Not among the top eight

Bain & Company10 of 210Not among the top eight

McKinsey & Company9 of 210Not among the top eight

The Hackett Group9 of 210Not among the top eight

Mercer Total Remuneration Survey8 of 214Not among the top eight

Computer Economics8 of 210Not among the top eight

PwC8 of 210Not among the top eight

BCG6 of 210Not among the top eight

Forrester6 of 210Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 APQC. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 21 of the 21 answers that named APQC and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gitnux.org18

worldmetrics.org18

zipdo.co15

wifitalents.com14

apqc.orgYour site8

thehackettgroup.com6

ravio.com5

gartner.com3

hr-ai-index.com3

linkedin.com3

Eighty-five of the ninety-three domain citations in answers naming APQC came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

worldmetrics.org/service/corporate-benchmarking16

gitnux.org/service/benchmarking15

zipdo.co/service/benchmarking13

worldmetrics.org/service/it-benchmarking11

worldmetrics.org/service/benchmarking9

gitnux.org/service/corporate-benchmarking8

zipdo.co/service/corporate-benchmarking8

zipdo.co/service/it-benchmarking8

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

apqc.org is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, APQC takes 0% of first choices and Pave takes 19%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “benchmarking providers”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “salary benchmarking data provider”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 1,900 a month (“apqc”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 79 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 33,542 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 5,224 · 565 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 5,170
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

14 ads · 14 text · 8 shown in the last 30 days

First shown September 2025, as American Productivity & Quality Center Inc., verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 4 in the year, 10 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 22 of 148 in compensation benchmarkin

Segment leader

19%

Pave

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 21 answers
Its own site cited: in 21 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on apqc.org

10,035

subdomains included

Content

3,899

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

56 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	1,931	14	2026-09-16	Performance management, Workforce planning
News or press	1,492	undated		Performance management, Workforce planning
Conference or event	290	undated		Performance management
Case study	50	undated		Performance management
Glossary or explainer	49	undated		Performance management
Webinar or virtual event	44	undated		Performance management
Comparison	19	undated
Report or ebook	12	undated
Template or tool	7	undated
Podcast or video	5	undated

Most recent

2026-09-16How do i develop effective knowledge management strategy blog
2026-09-11How prevent governance drift global business services blog
2026-09-09Workforce and employee efficiency tools blog
2026-08-26How can organizations better support knowledge workers and enhance workplace blog
2026-08-25Why cash flow automation stalls and how finance teams can break through blog
2026-08-19What supply chain forecasting 0 blog

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page apqc.org exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Of its titles that name a category, most name performance management (36); 0 name the category the models place it in. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.

Names read as APQC

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

APQC (American Productivity & Quality Center) 2

Follow APQC

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

The company

APQC is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Helping organizations benchmark performance, identify improvement opportunities, and learn from proven best practices
apqc.org
For: more than 1,000 organizational members in 45 industries worldwide
apqc.org
Certifications: Certified Process ManagerMaster Certified Knowledge Manager: Strategy & ImplementationCertified Thought Leadership ProducerCertified Framework ProfessionalMaster Certified Knowledge Transfer Professional
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, hosting, customers

What APQC's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: apqc.org. A claimed page can correct any of 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 APQC'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 APQC, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for APQC by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where APQC is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name APQC, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.