HR AI Index

Index › Products › EthicsPortal · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

EthicsPortal

5Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

5 / 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. EthicsPortal was named 2 times in Whistleblowing, where FaceUp led with 25%. 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-market35 of 107

under the label threshold

Enterprise46 of 88

under the label threshold

In whistleblowing · 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 EthicsPortal 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
Whistleblowing and investigations	Core HR and payroll	0%	35 of 107	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by FaceUp at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for EthicsPortal yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

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

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	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-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 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.

“Lowest Absolute Cost: EthicsPortal ... While cheaper, it may lack the deep workflow automation” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Whistleblowing · budget 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 EthicsPortal, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and EthicsPortal was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

NAVEX One5 of 51Not among the top eight

EQS Integrity Line4 of 50Not among the top eight

SpeakUp3 of 51Not among the top eight

Whistlelink3 of 50Not among the top eight

Whispli2 of 51Not among the top eight

Trusty1 of 51Not among the top eight

Walor1 of 51Not among the top eight

Ashio1 of 50Not among the top eight

Case IQ1 of 50Not among the top eight

Ethico1 of 50Not 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 EthicsPortal. 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 5 of the 5 answers that named EthicsPortal and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ethicsportal.euYour site5

firsthr.app5

ordio.com5

whistleblowertools.eu4

faceup.com3

g2.com3

guideflow.com3

navex.com3

sourceforge.net3

speakup.com3

Thirty-two of the thirty-seven domain citations in answers naming EthicsPortal came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

ethicsportal.eu/blog/best-whistleblower-software5

firsthr.app/compare/general/whistleblower-platform5

ordio.com/en/insights/guides/whistleblowing-software5

whistleblowertools.eu/compare4

faceup.com/en/blog/best-whistleblowing-software-tools3

guideflow.com/blog/whistleblowing-software3

disclosurely.com/blog/whistleblowing-software-pricing-explained2

elker.com/articles/whistleblowing-software2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on ethicsportal.eu

606

subdomains included

Content

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days
Blog	36	undated
Comparison	18	undated
Template or tool	4	undated

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page ethicsportal.eu 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 EthicsPortal

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

EthicsPortal is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Secure whistleblower reporting for EU compliance
ethicsportal.eu
For: organizations with 50+ employees
ethicsportal.eu
Price stated: €500/year ethicsportal.eu
Starting price: 500 ethicsportal.eu
Free plan or trial: 30-day money-back guarantee. ethicsportal.eu/pricing
Certifications: ISO/IEC 27001:2022ISO 37002:2021
Hosting: Nuremberg, GermanyFalkenstein, GermanyFrance
Not stated on the pages read: Integrations, customers

What EthicsPortal's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: ethicsportal.eu, ethicsportal.eu/pricing, ethicsportal.eu/trust, ethicsportal.eu/product. 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 EthicsPortal'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 EthicsPortal, 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 EthicsPortal by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where EthicsPortal 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 EthicsPortal, 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.