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 62 → 66 of 67
SAP · 17 categories · RankedSAP SuccessFactors
529Judge labels
20First choices
190Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
17Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
10% in Performance management for enterprise buyers
Rank 85 of 85 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 55% of its 20 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of SAP SuccessFactors →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business66 of 67
0%8 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market85 of 85
0%20 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise4 of 94
10%47 labels
criticized challenger
In performance management · 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 SAP SuccessFactors 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance management | Performance and talent management | 0% | 85 of 85 | 55% | 20 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Workforce management suites | Core HR and payroll | 0% | 26 of 78 | 33% | 18 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| HRIS and HCM platforms | Core HR and payroll | 0% | 21 of 66 | 44% | 16 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| HR help desk and case management | Onboarding and employee experience | 0% | 25 of 108 | 11% | 9 | under 10 labels · led by Zoho Desk at 19% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Employee onboarding | Onboarding and employee experience | 0% | 28 of 87 | 29% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by Rippling at 25% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Leave and absence management | Core HR and payroll | 0% | 75 of 95 | 40% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by BambooHR at 28% | =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% | 82 of 90 | 60% | 5 | 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 compliance and policy management | Core HR and payroll | 0% | 89 of 97 | 50% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Rippling at 19% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Internal communications and intranet | Onboarding and employee experience | 0% | 29 of 86 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Teams at 14% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Benefits administration | Core HR and payroll | 0% | 29 of 67 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Gusto at 20% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Org charts and org design | Workforce planning and analytics | 0% | 91 of 95 | 67% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by ChartHop at 30% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| People analytics | Workforce planning and analytics | 0% | 111 of 114 | 100% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Crunchr at 22% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| 360 feedback | Performance and talent management | 0% | 69 of 73 | 100% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 34% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Frontline employee apps | Onboarding and employee experience | 0% | 90 of 106 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Connecteam at 49% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Mentoring software | Learning and development | 0% | 59 of 77 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Together at 28% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Pay equity | Compensation and total rewards | 0% | 65 of 73 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Syndio at 12% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Video interviewing | Talent acquisition | 0% | 60 of 66 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Spark Hire at 50% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, SAP SuccessFactors held within the floor in all seventeen categories: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Performance management · 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 60 → 76 of 76
Enterprise▲+1Since September 2026: 11% → 12%, +1 point. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
12%from 11% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 12 pointsRank 4 of 89, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance management | 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 60 → 85 of 85 |
| Workforce management sui | 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 29 → 26 of 78 |
| HRIS and HCM platforms | 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 44 → 21 of 66 |
| HR help desk | 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 16 → 25 of 108 |
| Employee onboarding | 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 94 → 28 of 87 |
| Leave | 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 65 → 75 of 95 |
| 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 39 → 82 of 90 |
| HR compliance | 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 71 → 89 of 97 |
| Internal communications | 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 47 → 29 of 86 |
| Benefits administration | 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 40 → 29 of 67 |
| Org charts | 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 60 → 91 of 95 |
| People analytics | 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 53 → 111 of 114 |
| 360 feedback | 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 76 → 69 of 73 |
| Frontline employee apps | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 90 of 106, unchanged |
| Mentoring software | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 59 of 77, unchanged |
| Pay equity | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 65 of 73, unchanged |
| Video interviewing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 60 of 66, 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 SAP SuccessFactors 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 SAP SuccessFactors 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 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 7 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 10 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 7 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 18 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 11 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 8 |
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
Direct73 labels5
Paraphrase77 labels5
Comparative122 labels15not counted in share
Budget-constrained62 labels10
Scale-constrained37 labelsNone
Negative158 labels4not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative529 labels in all, every segment counted; 20 of the 39 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.
“prioritize Leaders from Gartner's 2024-2026 Magic Quadrant for WFM Tech ... SAP SuccessFactors” Grok 4.1 Fast · Workforce management sui · negative prompt · first choice
“Large enterprise with global workforce → SAP SuccessFactors or Workday” MiniMax M2.5 · HRIS and HCM platforms · comparative prompt · first choice
“Positioned as a strong alternative to ServiceNow, especially for organizations already invested in the SAP ecosystem.” Mistral Small · HR help desk · comparative prompt · alternative
“SAP SuccessFactors is the go-to for global enterprises needing deep talent management and multi-country compliance.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · HRIS and HCM platforms · 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.
“Platforms with Notable Concerns ... SAP SuccessFactors ... Poor UI/UX – frequently described as "not user-friendly," "outdated," and "confusing"appear” Kimi K2 · Performance management · negative prompt · hard negative
“Who should avoid: Small-to-mid-sized companies, or any organization that prizes simplicity and user adoption over enterprise-grade integration.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Performance management · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid enterprise-level platforms like UKG Pro, SAP, and Oracle unless you have hundreds of employees” MiniMax M2.5 · Workforce management sui · negative prompt · hard negative
“Expensive and requires SAP expertise... Avoid or be cautious about: ... SAP SuccessFactors” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Workforce management sui · negative prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as SAP SuccessFactors, over the 528 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP SuccessFactors was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as SAP SuccessFactors, over the 528 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP SuccessFactors 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 SAP SuccessFactors. 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 477 of the 528 answers that named SAP SuccessFactors and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
peoplemanagingpeople.com171
g2.com147
guideflow.com130
hibob.com123
forbes.com106
firsthr.app86
hrcloud.com84
learn.g2.com79
paycor.com77
rippling.com77
1,080 of the 1,080 domain citations in answers naming SAP SuccessFactors came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where SAP SuccessFactors stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where SAP SuccessFactors stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 6,600 a month (“sap successfactors”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 445 a month
- Its own site
- It sits on SAP's site (sap.com), so there are no site figures for it alone
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 85 of 85 in performance management
Segment leader
43%
Lattice
- First choices
- 20 across its categories
- Named in
- 528 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 477 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 SAP SuccessFactors
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as SAP SuccessFactors; a claim can dispute any of them.
SAP 14SAP SuccessFactors HCM 7SAP SuccessFactors Org Chart 1
Follow SAP SuccessFactors
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
SAP is the company behind SAP SuccessFactors.ShowHide
The company
SAP is the company behind SAP SuccessFactors.
ShowHideOn record
Company records- Also from SAP
- SAP Analytics Cloud, SAP Ariba, SAP BPC / SAP Analytics Cloud, SAP ECC, SAP Engagement Cloud, SAP Fieldglass, SAP GRC, SAP Joule and 24 more
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- an HCM suite with AI-driven talent intelligence software
- For
- HR leaders
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What SAP SuccessFactors's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: sap.com/blogs/sap-successfactors-beamery, sap.com/blogs/sap-successfactors-degreed, sap.com/blogs/sap-successfactors-skillsoft, sap.com/swiss/blogs/sap-successfactors-degreed, sap.com/swiss/blogs/sap-successfactors-beamery. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 SAP SuccessFactors'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 SAP SuccessFactors, 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 SAP SuccessFactors by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where SAP SuccessFactors 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 SAP SuccessFactors, 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.