Small business▲+5Since September 2026: 14% → 19%, +5 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
19%from 14% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 2 of 60, unchanged
2 categories · RankedSpidergap
109Judge labels
17First choices
19Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
22% in 360 feedback for small business buyers
Rank 5 of 73 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
1 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 9% of its 34 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Spidergap →By buyer segmentStrongest at small business.
Small business2 of 63
22%50 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market5 of 73
6%34 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise7 of 69
4%23 labels
criticized challenger
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 Spidergap 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 | 6% | 5 of 73 | 9% | 34 | accepted challenger | ▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Succession planning | Performance and talent management | 0% | 87 of 93 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Lattice at 28% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Spidergap held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · 360 feedback · by segment
Mid-market▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 15 → 6 of 69
Enterprise▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 6 → 13 of 59
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 360 feedback | 0% | 4% | ▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 15 → 5 of 73 |
| Succession planning | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 87 of 93, 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 Spidergap 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 Spidergap 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 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
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
Direct18 labels5
Paraphrase18 labels4
Comparative24 labels6not counted in share
Budget-constrained22 labels5
Scale-constrained7 labels3
Negative20 labels3not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative109 labels in all, every segment counted; 17 of the 26 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.
“1. Spidergap — Best Standalone 360 Tool ... or Spidergap if you want a focused, cost-effective 360 tool” GLM 4.7 FlashX · 360 feedback · direct prompt · first choice
“Spidergap is usually the safest "best" pick for a true 360-degree feedback tool” GPT-5.4 mini · 360 feedback · budget prompt · first choice
“You mainly need to run 360 assessments: Start with Spidergap or TruScore.” GPT-6 Luna · 360 feedback · comparative prompt · first choice
“Best overall for a limited budget: Spidergap” GPT-6 Luna · 360 feedback · budget 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.
“or cheap standalones like Spidergap (per-assessment, less integrated)” Grok 4.1 Fast · 360 feedback · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“Spidergap specifically has a review flagging confidentiality: "The only thing that was challenging ... inability of the software to keep participants data completely confidential"” Muse Glimmer 30B · 360 feedback · negative prompt · soft negative
“not a full succession suite, but useful if your budget plan centers on 360 feedback and development planning” GPT-5.4 mini · Succession planning · budget prompt · soft negative
“Carries a notable share of negative feedback (around 33% in some AI model analyses of reviews)” Grok 4.1 Fast · 360 feedback · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Spidergap, over the 109 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Spidergap was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Spidergap, over the 109 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Spidergap 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 Spidergap. 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 109 of the 109 answers that named Spidergap and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
betterworks.com72
workhuman.com71
feedbackpulse.com70
teamflect.com67
firsthr.app55
effy.ai47
charliehr.com44
peoplemanagingpeople.com42
nanoglobals.com38
guideflow.com36
542 of the 542 domain citations in answers naming Spidergap came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
spidergap.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Spidergap takes 6% of first choices and Lattice takes 34%.ShowHide
Search and answers
spidergap.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Spidergap takes 6% of first choices and Lattice takes 34%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “360 feedback tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “360-degree feedback tool”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 260 a month (“spidergap”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 1 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 97 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 19 · 2 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 455
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
6%
rank 5 of 73 in 360 feedback
Segment leader
34%
Lattice
- First choices
- 17 across its categories
- Named in
- 109 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 109 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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on spidergap.com
213
subdomains included
Content
2
counted in the table below
Documentation
193
Product · Integration
0 · 1
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 1 | undated | 360 feedback | ||
| Template or tool | 1 | undated | 360 feedback |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page spidergap.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Spidergap
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Spidergap; a claim can dispute any of them.
SpiderGap 1
Follow Spidergap
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
Spidergap is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Spidergap is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- The top rated solution for 360° Feedback. Create and run 360° Feedback assessments that help your employees to take action on personal development.
- For
- organizations
- Price stated
- Starter £899 per year; Pro £1749 per year; Enterprise Talk to us spidergap.com/pricing
- Starting price
- £899 spidergap.com/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Free trial; Your first 360° Feedback assessment is completely free! spidergap.com
- Certifications
- SSAE16 Type II SOC1SOC2 (Security and Availability Only)SOC3ISO 27001
- Hosting
- Europe
- Customers named
- Marin Clean EnergyNew Look
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations
What Spidergap's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: spidergap.com, spidergap.com/pricing, spidergap.com/security. 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 Spidergap'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 Spidergap, 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 Spidergap by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Spidergap 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 Spidergap, 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.