Small businessgoneNot named this edition; 0% in September 2026.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsNot ranked
Performance Pro
6Judge labels
1First choices
0Negative labels
3 / 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
1 label, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Performance Pro was named 1 time in 360 feedback, where Lattice led with 34%. 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-market13 of 73
2%1 label
under the label threshold
Enterprise22 of 69
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
In 360 feedback · 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 Performance Pro 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 360 feedback | Performance and talent management | 2% | 13 of 73 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 34% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Performance Pro held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · 360 feedback · by segment
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 54 → 13 of 69
EnterprisenewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 19 of 59, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 360 feedback | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 54 → 13 of 73 |
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 Performance Pro 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 Performance Pro 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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
Direct2 labelsNone
Paraphrase2 labels1
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.
“Highlighted as a strong fit for mid-sized organizations... making it ideal for B2B environments where performance clarity is key.” Mistral Small · 360 feedback · paraphrase 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.
No model argued against it.
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Performance Pro, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Performance Pro was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Performance Pro, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Performance Pro 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 Performance Pro. 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 6 of the 6 answers that named Performance Pro and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
learn.g2.com4
peoplemanagingpeople.com4
workhuman.com4
betterworks.com3
feedbackpulse.com2
guideflow.com2
intervue.io2
charliehr.com1
effy.ai1
f6s.com1
No domain is on file for Performance Pro, so its own site is not marked.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Follow Performance Pro
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 Performance Pro'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 Performance Pro, 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 Performance Pro by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Performance Pro 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 Performance Pro, 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.