Small businessnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 42 of 88, unchanged
1 category · Named, not rankedBuilt for Teams
2Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
1 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
1 label, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Built for Teams was named 1 time in Succession planning, where Lattice led with 28%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business43 of 91
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Mid-market46 of 93
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In succession planning · 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 Built for Teams 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Succession planning | Performance and talent management | 0% | 46 of 93 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 28% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Built for Teams held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Succession planning · by segment
Mid-marketnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 42 of 87, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Succession planning | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 46 of 93, unchanged |
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 Built for Teams 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 Built for Teams 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.
“Look at ChartHop or Built for Teams. These platforms excel at letting you visually map out "what-if" organizational structures” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Succession planning · scale 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 Built for Teams, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Built for Teams was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Built for Teams, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Built for Teams 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 Built for Teams. 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 2 of the 2 answers that named Built for Teams and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
builtapp.comYour site2
execonline.com2
monday.com2
peoplemanagingpeople.com2
talentguard.com2
aihr.com1
dayforce.com1
deel.com1
effy.ai1
empxtrack.com1
Thirteen of the fifteen domain citations in answers naming Built for Teams came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
builtapp.com ranks 9 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Built for Teams takes 0% of first choices and Lattice takes 28%.ShowHide
Search and answers
builtapp.com ranks 9 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Built for Teams takes 0% of first choices and Lattice takes 28%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “succession planning tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “succession planning software”
9
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 46 of 93 in succession planning
Segment leader
28%
Lattice
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 2 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 2 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
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on builtapp.com
116
subdomains included
Content
61
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
0 · 12
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-11 to 2026-10 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 57 | undated | Workforce planning, Succession planning | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 3 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 1 | undated |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page builtapp.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. Read October 5, 2026.
Follow Built for Teams
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
Built for Teams is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Built for Teams is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- an AI workforce planning platform for HR and Finance leaders that centralizes position data and decisions so that every workforce change is approved, tracked, and within budget
- For
- HR and Finance leaders
- Price stated
- Pricing is typically determined by three factors: the size of your organization, the modules that you need, and the length of the contract. builtapp.com/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- free trials can be arranged during a consultation with our team builtapp.com/pricing
- Integrations claimed
- 18 builtapp.com/integrations
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type 2PCI DSS Level 1
- Customers named
- SummitStone Health PartnersMinitab LLC
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, hosting
What Built for Teams's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: builtapp.com, builtapp.com/pricing, builtapp.com/security, builtapp.com/integrations. 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 Built for Teams'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 Built for Teams, 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 Built for Teams by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Built for Teams 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 Built for Teams, 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.