Small businessgoneNot named this edition; 0% in September 2026.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsNot ranked
2 categories · Named, not rankedBetterComp
7Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
6 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
6 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. BetterComp was named 6 times in Pay equity and 1 other category, where Syndio led with 12%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small businessnot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
Mid-market24 of 73
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In pay equity · 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 BetterComp 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pay equity | Compensation and total rewards | 0% | 24 of 73 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Syndio at 12% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Compensation management | Compensation and total rewards | 0% | 69 of 140 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Pave at 18% | =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, BetterComp held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Pay equity · by segment
Mid-marketnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 23 of 67, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pay equity | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 24 of 73, unchanged |
| Compensation management | 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 79 → 69 of 140 |
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 BetterComp across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated BetterComp 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 | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Direct1 labelNone
Paraphrase4 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained2 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 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.
“BetterComp \u2013 Budget-Friendly Option ... More affordable entry point for mid-sized companies” Kimi K2 · Pay equity · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“worth serious evaluation for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions” Llama 4 Maverick · Pay equity · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Ravio, Figures, or BetterComp - *Best for Multi-Jurisdictional Compliance*” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Pay equity · paraphrase 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 BetterComp, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BetterComp was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as BetterComp, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BetterComp was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 BetterComp. 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 7 of the 7 answers that named BetterComp and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
hrtechsaas.com4
peoplemanagingpeople.com4
trusaic.com4
kpmg.com3
ravio.com3
sourceforge.net3
beqom.com2
bettercomp.comYour site2
checkthat.ai2
comprehensive.io2
Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine domain citations in answers naming BetterComp came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on bettercomp.com
1,176
subdomains included
Content
133
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 98 | 6 | 2026-09-28 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 16 | 1 | 2026-08-25 | ||
| Report or ebook | 14 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 3 | 1 | 2026-08-03 | ||
| Template or tool | 2 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-28Data neutral isnt a feature its a bet on how comp teams should work blog
- 2026-09-23The leverage gap what ai means for how we pay people blog
- 2026-09-02The diverse data of compensation blog
- 2026-08-25Bettercomp ondemand demo webinar or virtual event
- 2026-08-03Build new vs modify 3 moments you need to build new ranges comparison
- 2026-07-22Job architecture in 2026 practitioners guide blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page bettercomp.com 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. 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 BetterComp
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as BetterComp; a claim can dispute any of them.
Bettercomp 1
Follow BetterComp
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
BetterComp is its own company.ShowHide
The company
BetterComp is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Market Pricing software that works even harder than you do
- For
- compensation teams
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What BetterComp's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: bettercomp.com, bettercomp.com/partners. 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 BetterComp'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 BetterComp, 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 BetterComp by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where BetterComp 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 BetterComp, 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.