| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce planning | Workforce planning and analytics | 2% | 14 of 98 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by ChartHop at 37% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Workforce scheduling | Core HR and payroll | 0% | 18 of 108 | 0% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by Deputy at 37% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce planning | 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 19 → 14 of 98 |
| Workforce scheduling | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 18 of 108, 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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“For most small businesses with limited budgets, Planday, OrgChart, or Leapsome would be good starting points.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Workforce planning · budget prompt · first choice
“Planday | Multi-department, multi-location | Good mid-tier option” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Workforce scheduling · scale prompt · alternative
“Other options include Planday, which starts at $2.99/user/month” Llama 4 Maverick · Workforce scheduling · budget prompt · alternative
“Great for mid-sized companies (100-1,000 employees)” MiniMax M2.5 · Workforce scheduling · paraphrase prompt · alternative
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.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 12 of the 12 answers that named Planday and are not a share of its labels.
No domain is on file for Planday, so its own site is not marked.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
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 Planday'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 Planday, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Planday by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: