HR AI Index

Index › Products › ThoughtSpot · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ThoughtSpot

6Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

5 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. ThoughtSpot was named 3 times in People analytics, where HiBob led with 15%. 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-market29 of 99

under the label threshold

Enterprise19 of 68

under the label threshold

In people analytics · 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 ThoughtSpot 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
People analytics	Workforce planning and analytics	0%	29 of 99	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by HiBob at 15%

Movement

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

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.

“Self-service analytics via natural language search (GenAI).” Qwen 3.7 Flash · People analytics · comparative prompt · alternative

“AI‑powered self‑service: ThoughtSpot” GLM 4.7 FlashX · People analytics · comparative 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 ThoughtSpot, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ThoughtSpot was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Visier6 of 65Not among the top eight

Workday People Analytics5 of 60Not among the top eight

Crunchr4 of 60Not among the top eight

One Model4 of 60Not among the top eight

ADP Workforce Now3 of 61Not among the top eight

ChartHop3 of 60Not among the top eight

Tableau3 of 60Not among the top eight

BambooHR2 of 60Not among the top eight

Culture Amp2 of 60Not among the top eight

Eletive2 of 60Not 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 ThoughtSpot. 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 5 of the 6 answers that named ThoughtSpot and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

thoughtspot.comYour site5

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com3

eletive.com3

hr.university3

hrbench.com3

leapsome.com3

devopsschool.com2

engagedly.com2

gartner.com2

learn.g2.com2

Twenty-three of the twenty-eight domain citations in answers naming ThoughtSpot came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

thoughtspot.com/data-trends/analytics/hr-analytics-software5

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/tools/10-best-hr-analytics-tools-for-enterprises/133883573

eletive.com/blog/people-analytics-tools3

hr.university/tools/hr-analytics-software3

hrbench.com/blog/best-people-analytics-software3

leapsome.com/comparisons/people-analytics-tools3

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-workplace-people-analytics-tools-features-pros-cons-compariso2

engagedly.com/blog/best-hr-analytics-softwares2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ThoughtSpot

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

Tableau / ThoughtSpot 1

Follow ThoughtSpot

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

where ThoughtSpot 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 ThoughtSpot, 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 thoughtspot.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.