GTM AI Index
Index › Vendors › EasyComp · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Ranked

EasyComp

25Judge labels
3First choices
0Negative labels
10 of 12Models named it
1Category
September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
6% in Commissions for small business buyers
Rank 15 of 51 in the mid-market standing
0 of 12 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 2 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business3 of 57
6%22 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market15 of 51
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise25 of 59
0%1 label
under the label threshold
In commissions · 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 EasyComp 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
Sales commissions and incentive compensationRevenue operations0%15 of 510%2under 10 labels · led by Everstage at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for EasyComp yet. The next is due October 1, 2026. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated EasyComp across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00101
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K200101
GLM 4.7 FlashX00000
MiniMax M2.500000

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
Direct5 labels2
Paraphrase3 labelsNone
Comparative7 labelsNone
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained6 labels1
Negative3 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 3 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 EasyComp, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and EasyComp was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
QuotaPath25 of 2519Not in the top three
Qobra20 of 251Not in the top three
Commissionly18 of 251Not in the top three
CaptivateIQ16 of 251Not in the top three
Everstage14 of 251Not in the top three
Salesforce Spiff12 of 251Not in the top three
Visdum11 of 250Not in the top three
Xactly11 of 250Not in the top three
Performio6 of 250Not in the top three
Centify5 of 250Not in the top three
A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 EasyComp. 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 25 answers that named EasyComp and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

croclub.com1
monday.com1
qobra.co1
selecthub.com1
sourceforge.net1
technologyadvice.com1
visdum.com1

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

Pages cited

croclub.com/tools/best-sales-commission-software1
croclub.com/tools/best-sales-commission-software-for-small-business1
monday.com/blog/crm-and-sales/commission-tracking-software1
qobra.co/blog/top-sales-commission-tools1
selecthub.com/c/sales-commission-software1
sourceforge.net/software/commission/for-small-business1
technologyadvice.com/blog/sales/best-sales-commission-software1
visdum.com/blog/best-sales-commission-software1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as EasyComp

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as EasyComp; a claim can dispute any of them.
Commissionly / EasyComp 1
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 EasyComp'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 EasyComp, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

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 easycomp.ai 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.

Subscribe to the pack