HR AI Index

Index › Products › Bebee · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Bebee

3Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

3 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Bebee was named 3 times in Job advertising, where JobTarget led with 21%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market105 of 109

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In job advertising · 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 Bebee 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
Job advertising and distribution	Talent acquisition	0%	105 of 109	100%	3	under 10 labels · led by JobTarget at 21%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Bebee 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 Bebee across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	1
Mistral Small	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Outdated/fake job postings scraped from elsewhere, paywalls to apply, unauthorized charges” Grok 4.1 Fast · Job advertising · negative prompt · hard negative

“frequently cited as problematic ... including potential scams and unverified listings” Mistral Small · Job advertising · negative prompt · hard negative

“Lensa, Bebee, and Ladders - seem to be scams” Llama 4 Maverick · Job advertising · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Bebee, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Bebee was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Dice3 of 30Not among the top eight

Intch3 of 30Not among the top eight

Ladders3 of 30Not among the top eight

Lensa3 of 30Not among the top eight

LinkedIn2 of 32Not among the top eight

Indeed2 of 31Not among the top eight

CareerBuilder2 of 30Not among the top eight

Glassdoor2 of 30Not among the top eight

Jobot2 of 30Not among the top eight

ZipRecruiter2 of 30Not 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 Bebee. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named Bebee and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

linkedin.com3

reddit.com3

consumer.ftc.gov2

hrmorning.com2

totaldefense.com2

airswift.com1

bestjobsearchapps.com1

careerplug.com1

complaintsboard.com1

consumeraffairs.com1

Seventeen of the seventeen domain citations in answers naming Bebee came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

linkedin.com/posts/fiona-de-villiers_ethical-give-activistsrevealcorruption-activity-742943

reddit.com/r/jobs/comments/1qay935/sites_to_avoid_for_job_seekers3

consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2023/05/scammers-are-hijacking-job-ads-heres-how-spot-fak2

hrmorning.com/articles/bad-job-boards2

reddit.com/r/RemoteJobs/comments/1mvdktj/are_there_any_job_sites_that_are_actually_legit2

reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/17a2j56/are_there_any_job_boards_that_arent_mostly_sc2

totaldefense.com/security-blog/job-board-safety-guide-how-to-avoid-employment-scams-on-fak2

airswift.com/blog/recruitment-scam-red-flags1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Bebee

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

Bebee.com 1

Follow Bebee

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 Bebee'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 Bebee, 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 Bebee by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Bebee 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 Bebee, 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 bebee.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.