Small businessgoneNot named this edition; 0% in September 2026.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsNot ranked
1 category · Named, not rankediprospectcheck
2Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
2 / 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. iprospectcheck was named 2 times in Background screening, where Checkr led with 31%. 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-market19 of 83
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In background screening · 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 iprospectcheck 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background screening | Talent acquisition | 0% | 19 of 83 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Checkr at 31% | =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, iprospectcheck held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Background screening · by segment
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 16 → 18 of 70
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background screening | 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 16 → 19 of 83 |
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 iprospectcheck 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 iprospectcheck 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 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
Direct1 labelNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
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.
“iprospectcheck in affordability/customization” Grok 4.1 Fast · Background screening · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best Transparent Pricing for Mid-Market*” Kimi K2 · Background screening · direct 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 iprospectcheck, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and iprospectcheck was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as iprospectcheck, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and iprospectcheck 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 iprospectcheck. 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 iprospectcheck and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
checkrreviews.com2
firsthr.app2
iprospectcheck.comYour site2
pin.com2
worldmetrics.org2
bib.com1
checkr.com1
consumeraffairs.com1
costbench.com1
creditdonkey.com1
Thirteen of the fifteen domain citations in answers naming iprospectcheck 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 iprospectcheck.com
308
subdomains included
Content
154
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 | 138 | 5 | 2026-09-23 | Background screening | |
| Comparison | 8 | 0 | 2026-02-02 | ||
| Case study | 4 | 0 | 2026-04-02 | ||
| Template or tool | 2 | 0 | 2025-04-02 | ||
| Report or ebook | 1 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 1 | 0 | 2023-12-07 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-23Switch background check provider blog
- 2026-08-27Self background check arizona blog
- 2026-08-17Nerc cip background checks blog
- 2026-07-292026 employer hiring survey blog
- 2026-07-28Data center background checks blog
- 2026-06-18Self background check north carolina blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page iprospectcheck.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 September 29, 2026.
Names read as iprospectcheck
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as iprospectcheck; a claim can dispute any of them.
iProspectCheck 1
Follow iprospectcheck
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
iprospectcheck is its own company.ShowHide
The company
iprospectcheck is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Know before you hire with fast, accurate, FCRA compliant employment background checks and clinical services customized for your business.
- For
- employers and individuals
- Price stated
- Small Business: 1 to 25 Background Checks Annually; Lower Volume: 25 to 50 Background Checks Annually; Higher Volume: 50+ Background Checks Annually. Pricing For 25 to 50 Background Checks Annually: Basic $24.95 each; Standard $49.95 each; Standard+MVR $55.95 each; Premium $79.95 each; Healthcare $89.95 each. iprospectcheck.com/pricing
- Starting price
- 24.95 iprospectcheck.com/pricing
- Certifications
- FCRA-compliantICE compliant
- Customers named
- JR CommunicationsABLE KidsR + R Professional Healthcare StaffingCascade Mountain
- Not stated on the pages read
- Free plan or trial, integrations, hosting
What iprospectcheck's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: iprospectcheck.com, iprospectcheck.com/pricing, iprospectcheck.com/case-studies. 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 iprospectcheck'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 iprospectcheck, 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 iprospectcheck by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where iprospectcheck 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 iprospectcheck, 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.