Small business▲+5Since September 2026: 0% → 5%, +5 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
5%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 12 → 5 of 52
ShareAble · 1 category · Named, not rankedShareAble for Hires
8Judge labels
3First choices
0Negative labels
5 / 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
2 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ShareAble for Hires was named 2 times in Background screening, where Checkr led with 31%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business5 of 59
4%6 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market14 of 83
2%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In background screening · 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 ShareAble for Hires 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background screening | Talent acquisition | 2% | 14 of 83 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Checkr at 31% | ▲+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, ShareAble for Hires held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Background screening · 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 37 → 13 of 70
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background screening | 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 37 → 14 of 83 |
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 ShareAble for Hires 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 ShareAble for Hires 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 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
Direct1 labelNone
Paraphrase3 labels1
Comparative2 labelsNone
Budget-constrained2 labels2
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative8 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 3 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.
“ShareAble for Hires if you value simplicity and instant results for basic screening” Kimi K2 · Background screening · budget prompt · first choice
“ShareAble requires no set-up fees or monthly minimums, and screening can begin immediately” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Background screening · 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 ShareAble for Hires, over the 8 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ShareAble for Hires was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ShareAble for Hires, over the 8 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ShareAble for Hires 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 ShareAble for Hires. 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 8 of the 8 answers that named ShareAble for Hires and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
goodhire.com7
checkr.com6
fitsmallbusiness.com5
money.com5
gcheck.com4
pcmag.com4
pin.com4
chamberofcommerce.org3
consumeraffairs.com3
hireshield.com3
Forty-four of the forty-four domain citations in answers naming ShareAble for Hires came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
shareable.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ShareAble for Hires takes 2% of first choices and Checkr takes 31%.ShowHide
Search and answers
shareable.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ShareAble for Hires takes 2% of first choices and Checkr takes 31%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “background check provider”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “background check providers”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 40 a month (“shareable for hires”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 1,342 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 94 · 4 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,268
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
Ads on Google
None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 14 of 83 in background screening
Segment leader
31%
Checkr
- First choices
- 3 across its categories
- Named in
- 8 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 8 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 ShareAble for Hires
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ShareAble for Hires; a claim can dispute any of them.
ShareAble for Hires (by TransUnion) 2
Follow ShareAble for Hires
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
ShareAble is the company behind ShareAble for Hires.ShowHide
The company
ShareAble is the company behind ShareAble for Hires.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- TransUnion pre-employment screening enables small business owners to do background checks quickly, easily & effectively. Free signup with no hidden fees.
- For
- small business owners
- Price stated
- Free signup with no hidden fees. It’s free to sign up. ShareAble is “pay-per-use” hires.shareable.com
- Free plan or trial
- Free signup hires.shareable.com
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What ShareAble for Hires's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: hires.shareable.com, shareable.com. 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 ShareAble for Hires'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 ShareAble for Hires, 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 ShareAble for Hires by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ShareAble for Hires 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 ShareAble for Hires, 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.