Index › Products › UserBenchmark · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

UserBenchmark

4Judge labels

0First choices

4Negative labels

4 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

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. UserBenchmark was named 4 times in Compensation benchmarkin, where Payscale led with 24%. 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-market141 of 141

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In compensation benchmarkin · 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 UserBenchmark 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
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	141 of 141	100%	4	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%

Movement

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

ShowHide

Model	Negative	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	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1
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-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

“UserBenchmark - Has received numerous complaints about: Severe bias toward certain hardware manufacturers” MiniMax M2.5 · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · hard negative

“The most prominent benchmarking provider you should strictly avoid ... is UserBenchmark.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · hard negative

“The one provider I'd actively steer you away from, above all others, is UserBenchmark” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid UserBenchmark due to its documented bias and inaccuracies.” Mistral Small · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as UserBenchmark, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and UserBenchmark was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cinebench3 of 41Not among the top eight

3DMark3 of 40Not among the top eight

Geekbench3 of 40Not among the top eight

technical.city3 of 40Not among the top eight

AnandTech1 of 40Not among the top eight

Anthropic1 of 40Not among the top eight

CrystalDiskMark1 of 40Not among the top eight

Figures.hr1 of 40Not among the top eight

Gamers Nexus1 of 40Not among the top eight

HELM1 of 40Not 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 UserBenchmark. 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 4 of the 4 answers that named UserBenchmark and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

9bench.com3

gizmosphere.org3

trustpilot.com3

reddit.com2

rtech.support2

thinkcomputers.org2

worldmetrics.org2

aclanthology.org1

acolytegroup.co.uk1

aice-lab.org1

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

Pages cited

9bench.com/articles/userbenchmark-banned-honest-alternatives-20263

gizmosphere.org/stop-using-userbenchmark3

trustpilot.com/review/www.userbenchmark.com3

rtech.support/learning/userbenchmark2

thinkcomputers.org/userbenchmark-biased-component-rating-drama2

worldmetrics.org/service/it-benchmarking2

9bench.com/1

9bench.com/articles/userbenchmark-alternatives-20261

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Follow UserBenchmark

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

where UserBenchmark 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 UserBenchmark, 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.