Every category where a model named Willis Towers Watson 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
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	146 of 148	56%	9	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 19%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

Movement

Since September 2026, Willis Towers Watson held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 13 points.

Best category · Compensation benchmarkin · by segment

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 155 → 142 of 143

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 42 → 135 of 138

Enterprise▼−5Since September 2026: 11% → 6%, −5 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

6%from 11% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 3 → 4 of 115

All categories · Mid-market

Category	September 2026	Now	Change	Reading	Rank
Compensation benchmarkin	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 42 → 146 of 148

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 Willis Towers Watson 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	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	0	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	1	1	2

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

Direct7 labels1

Paraphrase11 labels2

Comparative3 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative18 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative52 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 4 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.

“their benchmarks are considered the definitive "source of truth" by corporate boards and compensation committees” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · comparative prompt · first choice

“WTW is known for highly detailed compensation surveys that help companies benchmark salaries” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Compensation benchmarkin · paraphrase 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.

“Avoid: Traditional survey providers like Mercer, Korn Ferry, or Willis Towers Watson” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Compensation benchmarkin · paraphrase prompt · hard negative

“You typically want to avoid enterprise-level firms (like Mercer or Willis Towers Watson)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · budget prompt · hard negative

“"Why you should avoid traditional providers (Mercer, Radford, Willis Towers Watson)"” Muse Glimmer 30B · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid traditional providers like Mercer, Willis Towers Watson, or Aon at this stage” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · budget prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Willis Towers Watson, over the 52 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Willis Towers Watson was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Mercer Total Remuneration Survey45 of 529Not among the top eight

Payscale34 of 524Not among the top eight

Radford33 of 526Not among the top eight

Ravio20 of 523Not among the top eight

Pave18 of 525Not among the top eight

Salary.com CompAnalyst15 of 522Not among the top eight

Korn Ferry Pay14 of 520Not among the top eight

SalaryCube11 of 522Not among the top eight

Figures6 of 520Not among the top eight

Glassdoor6 of 520Not among the top eight

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 Willis Towers Watson. 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 48 of the 52 answers that named Willis Towers Watson and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ravio.com34

salarycube.com24

comprehensive.io21

hr-ai-index.com21

peoplemanagingpeople.com20

worldmetrics.org16

figures.hr15

gitnux.org14

pin.com14

zipdo.co13

No domain is on file for Willis Towers Watson, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

ravio.com/blog/compensation-benchmarking-companies26

comprehensive.io/content/best-compensation-benchmarking-data-sources20

peoplemanagingpeople.com/services/best-compensation-benchmarking-companies20

salarycube.com/compensation/best-compensation-benchmarking-companies-for-2026-complete-gui16

pin.com/blog/salary-benchmarking-tools14

ravio.com/blog/best-compensation-management-software12

figures.hr/post/salary-benchmarking-tools11

ravio.com/blog/salary-survey-providers11

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where Willis Towers Watson stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 14,800 a month (“willis towers watson”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 398 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 146 of 148 in compensation benchmarkin

Segment leader

19%

Pave

First choices: 3 across its categories
Named in: 52 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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 Willis Towers Watson

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Willis Towers Watson; a claim can dispute any of them.

Willis Towers Watson (WTW) 2

Follow Willis Towers Watson

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 Willis Towers Watson'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 Willis Towers Watson, 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 Willis Towers Watson by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Willis Towers Watson 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 Willis Towers Watson, 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.