Every category where a model named BackgroundChecks.com 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
Background screening	Talent acquisition	12%	4 of 59	8%	13	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for BackgroundChecks.com yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated BackgroundChecks.com across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve 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	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	0	0	2
Mistral Small	1	0	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	2	0	1	0	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	0	0	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

Direct8 labels3

Paraphrase9 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained16 labels8

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative46 labels in all, every segment counted; 11 of the 11 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.

“I'd pick BackgroundChecks.com for most small companies because it is explicitly positioned as the budget option with no commitment” Perplexity Sonar · Background screening · budget prompt · first choice

“1. BackgroundChecks.com - an FCRA-compliant background screening provider for small and mid-sized businesses.” Llama 4 Maverick · Background screening · direct prompt · first choice

“Offers the most budget-friendly pay-as-you-go option, with basic checks starting at $24.99 per report” Mistral Small · Background screening · budget prompt · first choice

“The best background check provider for a company with a limited budget is BackgroundChecks.com” Llama 4 Maverick · Background screening · 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.

“Why avoid: These are not FCRA-compliant consumer reporting agencies.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Background screening · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as BackgroundChecks.com, over the 46 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BackgroundChecks.com was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Checkr39 of 4615Compare →

GoodHire37 of 4613Compare →

Certn25 of 465Compare →

HireRight13 of 462Not among the top eight

GCheck11 of 461Not among the top eight

Accurate Background8 of 460Compare →

Sterling8 of 460Not among the top eight

First Advantage7 of 460Not among the top eight

HireShield6 of 461Not among the top eight

ShareAble for Hires6 of 460Not 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 BackgroundChecks.com. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 44 of the 46 answers that named BackgroundChecks.com and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

checkr.com39

bib.com30

fitsmallbusiness.com30

gcheck.com30

firsthr.app24

checkrreviews.com20

goodhire.com15

learn.g2.com15

logicalrefer.com11

costbench.com10

224 of the 224 domain citations in answers naming BackgroundChecks.com came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

checkr.com/resources/articles/best-background-checks39

gcheck.com/blog/9-best-background-check-companies-for-small-businesses30

fitsmallbusiness.com/best-background-check-companies29

bib.com/blog/best-background-screening-companies-comparison28

firsthr.app/compare/general/employee-background-check-services24

checkrreviews.com/best-background-check-services20

learn.g2.com/best-background-check-software15

goodhire.com/background-checks/small-business13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as BackgroundChecks.com

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

backgroundchecks.com 2Background Checks.com 1

Follow BackgroundChecks.com

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 BackgroundChecks.com'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 BackgroundChecks.com, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

With a new claim: the vendor brief

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for BackgroundChecks.com by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where BackgroundChecks.com 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 BackgroundChecks.com, 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.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at backgroundchecks.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.