Every category where a model named Pingboard 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
Org charts and org design	Workforce planning and analytics	4%	7 of 79	15%	27	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Pingboard 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 Pingboard 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	1	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	4	0	0	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	3	1	0	4
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	1	1	0	3
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	1	0	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	0	1

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

Direct19 labels4

Paraphrase6 labels1

Comparative29 labelsNone

Budget-constrained11 labels1

Scale-constrained17 labels2

Negative14 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative96 labels in all, every segment counted; 8 of the 8 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.

“Often rated best overall for mid-sized teams... Pingboard or Lucidchart are safe starts for most B2B mid-market needs” Grok 4.1 Fast · Org charts · direct prompt · first choice

“Pingboard (Workleap) offers the best value” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Org charts · direct prompt · first choice

“Pingboard (now part of Workleap) — Best for interactive org charts built around employee connection.” Llama 4 Maverick · Org charts · negative prompt · alternative

“best when you want governed changes, admin workflows, and integrations for a growing mid-market org” Perplexity Sonar · Org charts · direct 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.

“Requires a custom quote; generally aimed at larger budgets.” Kimi K2 · Org charts · budget prompt · hard negative

“some users find it less intuitive for complex organizational structures and it may not scale well for very large enterprises” Mistral Small · Org charts · negative prompt · soft negative

“a starter plan that's cheaper than Pingboard's ($20 monthly vs $186.25 monthly)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Org charts · budget prompt · soft negative

“more HR-focused, but can be pricier than the simplest tools” GPT-5.4 mini · Org charts · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Pingboard, over the 96 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Pingboard was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Lucidchart76 of 9612Compare →

ChartHop67 of 9617Compare →

Organimi59 of 9620Compare →

OrgChart45 of 9612Compare →

Microsoft Visio42 of 960Not among the top eight

Creately36 of 964Not among the top eight

Miro32 of 960Compare →

SmartDraw25 of 960Not among the top eight

OneDirectory20 of 966Compare →

Canva18 of 962Not 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 Pingboard. 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 78 of the 96 answers that named Pingboard and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

theorgchart.com57

gartner.com51

forbes.com47

orgchartstudio.com45

learn.g2.com41

peoplemanagingpeople.com33

gitnux.org26

peerdom.com26

happeo.com24

onedirectory.com23

373 of the 373 domain citations in answers naming Pingboard came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/org-chart-software50

forbes.com/advisor/business/software/best-org-chart-software47

theorgchart.com/resources/best-org-chart-software43

learn.g2.com/best-org-chart-software41

orgchartstudio.com/blog/org-chart-software-comparison32

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-org-chart-tools30

orgchartstudio.com/blog/best-org-chart-software27

peerdom.com/blog/best-org-chart-software26

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Pingboard

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

Pingboard (Workleap) 3Pingboard (by Workleap) 2Pingboard (now Workleap Pingboard) 1Pingboard (now Workleap) 1Pingboard (now part of Workleap) 1Pingboard / Workleap 1Pingboard by Workleap 1

Follow Pingboard

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

where Pingboard 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 Pingboard, 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 pingboard.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.