Small business▲+20Since September 2026: 13% → 33%, +20 points. Past the 13-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.
33%from 13% in September 2026
Cleared the floor by 7 pointsRank 3 → 1 of 99
8 categories · RankedChartHop
382Judge labels
95First choices
51Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
8Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
37% in Workforce planning for mid-market buyers
Rank 1 of 98 in the mid-market standingendorsed leader
6 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 5% of its 39 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of ChartHop →By buyer segmentStrongest at mid-market.
Small business1 of 102
31%40 labels
endorsed leader
Mid-market1 of 98
37%39 labels
endorsed leader
Enterprise3 of 83
7%19 labels
accepted challenger
In workforce 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 ChartHop 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce planning | Workforce planning and analytics | 37% | 1 of 98 | 5% | 39 | endorsed leader | ▲+8Since September 2026: 31% → 39%, +8 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Org charts and org design | Workforce planning and analytics | 30% | 1 of 95 | 6% | 48 | endorsed leader | ▲+4Since September 2026: 27% → 30%, +4 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| People analytics | Workforce planning and analytics | 21% | 2 of 114 | 12% | 43 | accepted challenger | ▲+9Since September 2026: 8% → 17%, +9 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Succession planning | Performance and talent management | 0% | 30 of 93 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 28% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| HR AI assistants | Onboarding and employee experience | 0% | 51 of 142 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by MeBeBot at 21% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| HRIS and HCM platforms | Core HR and payroll | 0% | 34 of 66 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Rippling at 26% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Pay equity | Compensation and total rewards | 0% | 49 of 73 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Syndio at 12% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Talent intelligence | Performance and talent management | 0% | 75 of 90 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Pin at 27% | =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, ChartHop held within the floor in all eight categories: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Workforce planning · by segment
Mid-market▲+8Since September 2026: 31% → 39%, +8 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
39%from 31% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 5 pointsRank 1 of 93, unchanged
Enterprise▲+2Since September 2026: 7% → 9%, +2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
9%from 7% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 3 of 68, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People analytics | 8% | 17% | ▲+9Since September 2026: 8% → 17%, +9 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 5 → 2 of 114 |
| Workforce planning | 31% | 39% | ▲+8Since September 2026: 31% → 39%, +8 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 98, unchanged |
| Org charts | 27% | 30% | ▲+4Since September 2026: 27% → 30%, +4 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 95, unchanged |
| Succession planning | 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 23 → 30 of 93 |
| HR AI assistants | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 51 of 142, unchanged |
| HRIS and HCM platforms | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 34 of 66, unchanged |
| Pay equity | 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 22 → 49 of 73 |
| Talent intelligence | 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 46 → 75 of 90 |
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 ChartHop 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 ChartHop 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 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 11 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 7 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 7 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 12 |
| Mistral Small | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 13 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Kimi K2 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 14 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 12 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 13 |
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
Direct66 labels29
Paraphrase59 labels34
Comparative86 labels13not counted in share
Budget-constrained62 labels18
Scale-constrained59 labels14
Negative50 labels5not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative382 labels in all, every segment counted; 95 of the 113 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.
“My top recommendation for most mid-market B2B companies: ChartHop - it offers the best balance of features, pricing, and ease of use” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Workforce planning · direct prompt · first choice
“consider HR-based tools like ChartHop, Orgvue, or Nakisa, which connect to live data sources and regenerate the chart automatically” Mistral Small · Org charts · negative prompt · first choice
“ChartHop suits smaller and mid-market teams that need to see and plan the org without standing up an enterprise modeling platform.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Workforce planning · direct prompt · first choice
“This is currently the most recommended tool for modern mid-market companies (roughly 50–500 employees) moving away from Excel.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Workforce planning · paraphrase prompt · first choice
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.
“avoid enterprise-focused tools like ... ChartHop ... ChartHop ($2–$8/employee/month) or Lattice may lack the enterprise depth needed for thousands of users.” Mistral Small · People analytics · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid per-employee pricing models (like ChartHop or Pingboard) if you're budget-constrained” Kimi K2 · Org charts · budget prompt · hard negative
“Tools like Float/ChartHop for resource scheduling don't scale to enterprise skills-aware modeling” Kimi K2 · Workforce planning · negative prompt · soft negative
“skip if very tight budget ... $9,000/year minimum contract – a deal-breaker for small teams” DeepSeek V4 Flash · People analytics · budget prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ChartHop, over the 382 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ChartHop was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ChartHop, over the 382 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ChartHop 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 ChartHop. 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 365 of the 382 answers that named ChartHop and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
firsthr.app159
peoplemanagingpeople.com157
guideflow.com113
learn.g2.com90
g2.com85
charthop.comYour site79
workhuman.com76
resources.rework.com73
gitnux.org69
selectsoftwarereviews.com66
888 of the 967 domain citations in answers naming ChartHop came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where ChartHop stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where ChartHop stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “workforce planning tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “workforce planning software”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 2,900 a month (“charthop”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 16 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 6,238 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 1,180 · 134 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,306
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
37%
rank 1 of 98 in workforce planning
First choices
95
across its categories
- Named in
- 382 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 365 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 charthop.com
1,623
subdomains included
Content
46
counted in the table below
Documentation
1,029
Product · Integration
8 · 87
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Webinar or virtual event | 11 | undated | |||
| Blog | 9 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 9 | undated | HRIS and HCM platforms, Workforce planning | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 8 | undated | Org charts, Performance management | ||
| Template or tool | 6 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 2 | undated | |||
| Case study | 1 | undated |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page charthop.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 ChartHop
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ChartHop; a claim can dispute any of them.
ChartHop Basic 1Charthop 1
Follow ChartHop
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
ChartHop is its own company.ShowHide
The company
ChartHop is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Organizational intelligence for people analytics, headcount planning and HCM
- For
- HR and Finance teams at small businesses to large enterprises
- Price stated
- We charge a transparent base fee per employee, per month (PEPM). You only pay for the specific modules you need—like Headcount Planning or Compensation—so the platform grows right alongside your headcount. charthop.com
- Integrations claimed
- 100 charthop.com
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type 2SOC 2 Type 2 examination by Schellman & Company
- Customers named
- Sweetgreen1PasswordTrueworkRexallFanaticsZapierToyota ConnectedKorn Ferry
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, free plan or trial, hosting
What ChartHop's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: charthop.com, charthop.com/pricing, charthop.com/security, charthop.com/platform, charthop.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 ChartHop'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 ChartHop, 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 ChartHop by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ChartHop 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 ChartHop, 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.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where ChartHop is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where ChartHop is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideWorkforce planning
AI models recommend ChartHop first in Workforce planning this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Org charts and org design
AI models recommend ChartHop first in Org charts and org design this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
People analytics
ChartHop is among the products AI models recommend first in People analytics this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.