AI Indexes
HR AI Index
Index › Products › MIT OpenCourseWare · October 2026 Edition
2 categories · Named, not ranked

MIT OpenCourseWare

2Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
1 / 14Models named it
2Categories
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. MIT OpenCourseWare was named 2 times in Online course libraries and 1 other category, where Udemy Business led with 48%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In online course libraries · 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 MIT OpenCourseWare 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
Online course librariesLearning and development0%39 of 950%1under 10 labels · led by Udemy Business at 48%=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Skills intelligencePerformance and talent management0%78 of 1270%1under 10 labels · led by Skills Base at 18%newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

Movement

Since September 2026, MIT OpenCourseWare held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 13 points.

Best category · Online course libraries · 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 31 → 35 of 90

All categories · Mid-market

CategorySeptember 2026NowChangeReadingRank
Online course libraries0%0%=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.Within noiseRank 31 → 39 of 95
Skills intelligence0%0%newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.New this editionRank 78 of 127, 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 MIT OpenCourseWare across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00000
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K200000
GLM 4.7 FlashX01102
MiniMax M2.500000
GPT-6 Luna00000
Muse Glimmer 30B00000

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
Comparative2 labelsNone
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.

“For free foundational learning: Khan Academy or MIT OpenCourseWare” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Online course libraries · comparative 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 MIT OpenCourseWare, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and MIT OpenCourseWare was named but was not.
ShowHide
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
edX2 of 21Not among the top eight
Khan Academy2 of 20Not among the top eight
LinkedIn Learning2 of 20Not among the top eight
Skillshare2 of 20Not among the top eight
Udemy Business2 of 20Not among the top eight
Coursera1 of 21Not among the top eight
Coursera for Business1 of 21Not among the top eight
Codecademy1 of 20Not among the top eight
DataCamp1 of 20Not among the top eight
Degreed1 of 20Not 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 MIT OpenCourseWare. 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 MIT OpenCourseWare and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

goskills.com2
onlinecourseing.com2
buddyboss.com1
business.edx.org1
ccslearningacademy.com1
checkthat.ai1
collegenp.com1
course.careers1
coursebox.ai1
coursera.org1

No domain is on file for MIT OpenCourseWare, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Follow MIT OpenCourseWare

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.

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 MIT OpenCourseWare'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 MIT OpenCourseWare, 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 MIT OpenCourseWare by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

  • where MIT OpenCourseWare 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 MIT OpenCourseWare, 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.
The subscriber app

A verification link goes to your work email; an address at the vendor's own domain is approved on the spot, any other is reviewed by hand. Your email is never published. Claiming gives no say over labels, shares, verdicts or which quotes appear.