HR AI Index

Index › Products › RecruitingCRM · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

RecruitingCRM

1Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

1 / 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. RecruitingCRM was named 1 time in Recruiting CRM, where Lever led with 20%. 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-market68 of 88

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In recruiting crm · 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 RecruitingCRM 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
Recruiting CRM and sourcing	Talent acquisition	0%	68 of 88	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Lever at 20%

Movement

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

ShowHide

Model	Mention	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	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	1	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as RecruitingCRM, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RecruitingCRM was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pin1 of 11Not among the top eight

Fetcher1 of 10Not among the top eight

Gem1 of 10Not among the top eight

Giig1 of 10Not among the top eight

GoHire1 of 10Not among the top eight

Google Alerts1 of 10Not among the top eight

Indeed Resume Database1 of 10Not among the top eight

Juicebox1 of 10Not among the top eight

LinkedIn Recruiter1 of 10Not among the top eight

SeekOut1 of 10Not 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 RecruitingCRM. 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 1 of the 1 answers that named RecruitingCRM and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

hireez.com1

hiretruffle.com1

juicebox.ai1

noon.ai1

pin.com1

recruitingcrm.comYour site1

selectsoftwarereviews.com1

wiza.co1

Seven of the eight domain citations in answers naming RecruitingCRM came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

hireez.com/blog/free-online-recruiting-resources1

hiretruffle.com/blog/sourcing-tools-for-recruiters1

juicebox.ai/blog/recruiting-software-for-small-business1

noon.ai/blog/articles/264-pin-review1

pin.com/1

pin.com/blog/candidate-sourcing-software1

pin.com/blog/candidate-sourcing-tools1

pin.com/features/ai-sourcing1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on recruitingcrm.com

subdomains included

Content

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Categories named
Blog	40	undated	Recruiting CRM
Glossary or explainer	9	undated
Comparison	5	undated
News or press	5	undated

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page recruitingcrm.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Read September 29, 2026.

Follow RecruitingCRM

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

where RecruitingCRM 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 RecruitingCRM, 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.