Every category where a model named Payfactors 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
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	2%	20 of 140	17%	6	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 18%	▲+1Since September 2026: 1% → 2%, +1 point. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	37 of 148	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 19%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Pay equity	Compensation and total rewards	0%	29 of 73	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Syndio at 12%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

Movement

Since September 2026, Payfactors held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 13 points.

Best category · Compensation management · by segment

Small business=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 98 → 47 of 100

Mid-market▲+1Since September 2026: 1% → 2%, +1 point. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

2%from 1% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 12 pointsRank 23 → 20 of 131

Enterprise=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 82 → 27 of 109

All categories · Mid-market

Category	September 2026	Now	Change	Reading	Rank
Compensation management	1%	2%	▲+1Since September 2026: 1% → 2%, +1 point. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.	Within noise	Rank 23 → 20 of 140
Compensation benchmarkin	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 39 → 37 of 148
Pay equity	0%	0%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.	New this edition	Rank 29 of 73, 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 Payfactors 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	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	0	1
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	1	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	2	1	4

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

Direct5 labelsNone

Paraphrase6 labels1

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative19 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“I'd recommend Payfactors (now part of UKG) as a strong starting point for salary planning and compensation reviews” Grok 4.1 Fast · Compensation management · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Payfactors is the cheapest entry for compensation teams doing market-based statement workflows” Muse Glimmer 30B · Pay equity · comparative prompt · alternative

“is a strong fit for mid-market teams that need large, diverse datasets” Perplexity Sonar · Compensation benchmarkin · direct prompt · alternative

“*Best for Multi-Source Data*” Kimi K2 · Compensation benchmarkin · paraphrase 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.

“their results can vary by as much as 35% for benchmark jobs... methodologies and data sources are often hidden behind proprietary black boxes” Muse Glimmer 30B · Compensation management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Payfactors, over the 19 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Payfactors was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pave7 of 192Not among the top eight

Payscale7 of 192Not among the top eight

Salary.com CompAnalyst6 of 192Not among the top eight

Workday Compensation5 of 192Not among the top eight

Ravio5 of 191Not among the top eight

beqom5 of 191Not among the top eight

Compport4 of 190Not among the top eight

Paycom4 of 190Not among the top eight

Radford3 of 192Not among the top eight

Comprehensive3 of 191Not 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 Payfactors. 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 19 of the 19 answers that named Payfactors and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

learn.g2.com13

ravio.com12

comprehensive.io11

guideflow.com8

gitnux.org6

peoplemanagingpeople.com6

darwinbox.com5

deel.com5

g2.com5

gartner.com5

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

Pages cited

learn.g2.com/best-compensation-management-software13

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-management-software10

ravio.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software8

ravio.com/blog/compensation-planning-software7

darwinbox.com/blog/8-best-compensation-management-software-enterprises5

deel.com/blog/10-compensation-management-systems-mid-size-companies5

hibob.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software5

firsthr.app/compare/payroll/compensation-management-tools4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where Payfactors stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 1,900 a month (“payfactors”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 15 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 20 of 140 in compensation management

Segment leader

18%

Pave

First choices: 1 across its categories
Named in: 19 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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 Payfactors

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Payfactors; a claim can dispute any of them.

Payscale / Payfactors 1Payscale Ascent / Payfactors 1

Follow Payfactors

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

where Payfactors 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 Payfactors, 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.