Small business▼−1Since September 2026: 4% → 4%, −1 point. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 12 pointsRank 9 of 108, unchanged
LinkedIn · 7 categories · RankedLinkedIn Recruiter
130Judge labels
9First choices
53Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
7Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
6% in Recruiting CRM for enterprise buyers
Rank 7 of 111 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 26% of its 34 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of LinkedIn Recruiter →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business6 of 114
5%31 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market7 of 111
4%34 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise6 of 78
6%29 labels
criticized challenger
In recruiting crm · 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 LinkedIn Recruiter 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recruiting CRM and sourcing | Talent acquisition | 4% | 7 of 111 | 26% | 34 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 5% → 4%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| AI recruiting assistants | Talent acquisition | 0% | 76 of 90 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Manatal at 31% | =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% | 86 of 90 | 100% | 2 | 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. |
| HR AI assistants | Onboarding and employee experience | 0% | 74 of 142 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by MeBeBot at 21% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Internal talent marketplace | Performance and talent management | 0% | 42 of 102 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Fuel50 at 47% | |
| Job advertising and distribution | Talent acquisition | 0% | 71 of 111 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by JobTarget at 23% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Recruitment marketing and career sites | Talent acquisition | 0% | 47 of 104 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Teamtailor at 23% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, LinkedIn Recruiter held within the floor in all seven categories: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Recruiting CRM · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 5% → 4%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 5% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 7 of 108, unchanged
Enterprise▼−13Since September 2026: 15% → 2%, −13 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 15% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 0 pointsRank 3 → 14 of 72
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recruiting CRM | 5% | 4% | =heldSince September 2026: 5% → 4%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 7 of 111, unchanged |
| AI recruiting assistants | 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 63 → 76 of 90 |
| 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 54 → 86 of 90 |
| HR AI assistants | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 74 of 142, unchanged |
| Internal talent marketpl | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 42 of 102, unchanged |
| Job advertising | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 71 of 111, unchanged |
| Recruitment marketing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 47 of 104, 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 LinkedIn Recruiter 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 LinkedIn Recruiter 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 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
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
Direct27 labels6
Paraphrase4 labelsNone
Comparative35 labels14not counted in share
Budget-constrained35 labels3
Scale-constrained7 labelsNone
Negative22 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative130 labels in all, every segment counted; 9 of the 24 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.
“### 1. LinkedIn Recruiter - Best for: Enterprise-scale sourcing - Key difference: Direct access to the largest professional network” MiniMax M2.5 · Recruiting CRM · comparative prompt · first choice
“The most widely used platform, leveraging the world's largest professional database (290M+ profiles).” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Recruiting CRM · comparative prompt · first choice
“The default industry standard — by far the largest professional network with 1B+ profiles.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Recruiting CRM · comparative prompt · first choice
“Need the biggest professional network and relationship outreach? → LinkedIn Recruiter” GPT-5.4 mini · Recruiting CRM · comparative 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.
“Overpriced Platforms with Opaque Pricing - LinkedIn Recruiter Corporate: $10,800–$15,000/year with 3-seat minimums” Kimi K2 · Recruiting CRM · negative prompt · hard negative
“Tools like LinkedIn Recruiter cost north of $9K/year per seat—this is justified by network size, but many alternatives provide similar value at a fraction of the cost.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Recruiting CRM · negative prompt · soft negative
“The gold standard network with the highest candidate-intent database, though it lacks advanced multi-channel outbound automation on its own.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Recruiting CRM · comparative prompt · soft negative
“LinkedIn Recruiter Alone: While industry-standard, it’s costly ($9K+/seat), requires manual searching, limits outreach to InMail only” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Recruiting CRM · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as LinkedIn Recruiter, over the 121 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and LinkedIn Recruiter was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as LinkedIn Recruiter, over the 121 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and LinkedIn Recruiter 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 LinkedIn Recruiter. 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 111 of the 121 answers that named LinkedIn Recruiter and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
pin.com62
lever.co51
leonar.app35
selectsoftwarereviews.com34
intervue.io29
juicebox.ai29
hiretruffle.com26
gem.com24
noon.ai23
metaview.ai22
335 of the 335 domain citations in answers naming LinkedIn Recruiter came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where LinkedIn Recruiter stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where LinkedIn Recruiter stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 14,800 a month (“linkedin recruiter”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 1,160 a month
- Its own site
- It sits on LinkedIn's site (linkedin.com), so there are no site figures for it alone
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
4%
rank 7 of 111 in Recruiting CRM
Segment leader
15%
Gem
- First choices
- 9 across its categories
- Named in
- 121 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 111 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.
Names read as LinkedIn Recruiter
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as LinkedIn Recruiter; a claim can dispute any of them.
LinkedIn Recruiter Lite 9LinkedIn Recruiter Corporate 2LinkedIn Recruiter + ATS integration 1
Follow LinkedIn Recruiter
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
LinkedIn is the company behind LinkedIn Recruiter.ShowHide
The company
LinkedIn is the company behind LinkedIn Recruiter.
ShowHideOn record
Company records- Also from LinkedIn
- LinkedIn "Easy Apply", LinkedIn Ads, LinkedIn Assessments, LinkedIn Company Page, LinkedIn Hiring Assistant, LinkedIn Job Slots, LinkedIn Jobs, LinkedIn Learning and 9 more
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 LinkedIn Recruiter'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 LinkedIn Recruiter, 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 LinkedIn Recruiter by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where LinkedIn Recruiter 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 LinkedIn Recruiter, 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.