Every category where a model named Freelancer.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
Internal talent marketplace	Performance and talent management	0%	127 of 128	56%	16	criticized challenger
Contingent workforce management	Workforce planning and analytics	0%	94 of 97	100%	3	under 10 labels · led by SimpleVMS at 35%
Skills intelligence	Performance and talent management	0%	159 of 161	100%	3	under 10 labels · led by TalentGuard at 19%
Compensation management	Compensation and total rewards	0%	157 of 186	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Pave at 18%

Movement

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

ShowHide

Model	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	3	3
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	2	3
Mistral Small	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	2
Kimi K2	0	2	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	2	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative13 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative40 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative54 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.

“This is considered one of the worst platforms for hiring, and users recommend steering clear of it” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Internal talent marketpl · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid: Freelancer.com ... Consistently ranked as one of the least freelancer-friendly platforms.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Skills intelligence · negative prompt · hard negative

“reputation for "bid wars" ... low-quality client leads, and occasional withholding of funds” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Internal talent marketpl · negative prompt · hard negative

“Repeated complaints about payment withholding, poor dispute protection, and scam clients.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Contingent workforce man · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Freelancer.com, over the 54 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Freelancer.com was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Upwork53 of 548Not among the top eight

Fiverr53 of 543Not among the top eight

Toptal38 of 5412Not among the top eight

PeoplePerHour21 of 541Not among the top eight

Contra16 of 540Not among the top eight

Guru14 of 540Not among the top eight

Braintrust7 of 541Not among the top eight

Gloat6 of 544Not among the top eight

Gigster6 of 542Not among the top eight

Gun.io6 of 541Not 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 Freelancer.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 46 of the 54 answers that named Freelancer.com and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com21

upwork.com19

reddit.com18

awesomic.com15

linkedin.com15

trustpilot.com15

outsourceaccelerator.com13

cbr.exchange12

cotocus.com10

freelancepicks.net10

148 of the 148 domain citations in answers naming Freelancer.com came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cbr.exchange/blogs/how-to-choose-a-talent-marketplace-key-criteria-for-202612

outsourceaccelerator.com/articles/upwork-and-fiverr-scams-and-how-to-avoid-them12

cotocus.com/blog/top-10-workforce-marketplace-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison10

awesomic.com/blog/talent-marketplace-cheat-sheet-speed-cost-quality9

g2.com/categories/freelance-platforms/small-business9

awesomic.com/blog/ultimate-list-talent-marketplaces-for-businesses-in-20258

fastlancer.org/en/fastlancer-blog/freelance-platforms8

gartner.com/reviews/market/internal-talent-marketplaces8

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Freelancer.com

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

Freelancer 2

Follow Freelancer.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 Freelancer.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 Freelancer.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 Freelancer.com by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Freelancer.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 Freelancer.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 freelancer.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.