Index › Products › Sift · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Sift

19Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

10 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

9 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Sift was named 9 times in Org charts, where ChartHop led with 27%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business40 of 74

under the label threshold

Mid-market16 of 79

under the label threshold

Enterprise22 of 87

under the label threshold

In org charts · 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 Sift 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	0%	16 of 79	0%	9	under 10 labels · led by ChartHop at 27%

Movement

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

ShowHide

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative3 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative19 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

“these handle complexity like matrix reporting, multi-office structures, and frequent changes well” Grok 4.1 Fast · Org charts · scale prompt · alternative

“Pick Sift or GoProfiles if the org chart is part of a people directory” Perplexity Sonar · Org charts · comparative prompt · alternative

“Look at Pingboard (Workleap), GoProfiles, or Sift” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Org charts · scale 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Sift, over the 19 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Sift was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Lucidchart17 of 191Not among the top eight

Microsoft Visio15 of 192Not among the top eight

ChartHop14 of 193Not among the top eight

Pingboard14 of 190Not among the top eight

Organimi13 of 191Not among the top eight

OrgChart10 of 193Not among the top eight

OneDirectory10 of 191Not among the top eight

SmartDraw9 of 190Not among the top eight

Miro8 of 190Not among the top eight

Creately6 of 190Not 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 Sift. 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 13 of the 19 answers that named Sift and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

theorgchart.com10

peoplemanagingpeople.com9

gartner.com8

learn.g2.com7

blog.jostle.me6

orgchartstudio.com6

peerdom.com6

functionly.com5

forbes.com4

g2.com4

No domain is on file for Sift, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/best-org-chart-tools9

theorgchart.com/resources/best-org-chart-software9

gartner.com/reviews/market/org-chart-software8

learn.g2.com/best-org-chart-software7

blog.jostle.me/blog/organizational-chart-software6

peerdom.com/blog/best-org-chart-software6

functionly.com/orginometry/organizational-accountability/the-ultimate-guide-to-choosing-th5

orgchartstudio.com/blog/org-chart-software-comparison5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Sift

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

Sift / GoProfiles 1

Follow Sift

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

where Sift 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 Sift, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.