Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 52 → 38 of 40
SAP Commissions
45Judge labels
0First choices
24Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
0% in Commissions for enterprise buyers
Rank 47 of 47 in the mid-market standing
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 88% of its 8 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business42 of 44
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market47 of 47
0%8 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise29 of 34
0%18 labels
criticized challenger
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 SAP Commissions 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales commissions and incentive compensation | Revenue operations | 0% | 47 of 47 | 88% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by CaptivateIQ at 25% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Territory and quota planning | Revenue operations | 0% | 69 of 123 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by CaptivateIQ Planning at 36% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, SAP Commissions held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Commissions · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 48 → 46 of 46
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 57 → 31 of 31
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commissions | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 48 → 47 of 47 |
| Territory planning | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 89 → 69 of 123 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated SAP Commissions across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated SAP Commissions across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 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
Direct3 labelsNone
Paraphrase11 labelsNone
Comparative7 labelsNone
Budget-constrained2 labelsNone
Scale-constrained5 labelsNone
Negative17 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative45 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.
“Consider SAP Territory and Quota if your planning process is already built around SAP.” GPT-6 Luna · Territory planning · comparative prompt · alternative
“Choose SAP if your company is already centered on SAP” GPT-5.4 mini · Territory planning · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Best for: Complex, regulated environments” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Commissions · paraphrase 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.
“Who should avoid: Nearly everyone unless you're already a massive SAP shop.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Commissions · negative prompt · hard negative
“you likely do not have the massive admin resources required to manage enterprise legacy systems like Anaplan or SAP Commissions” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Territory planning · scale prompt · soft negative
“Described as scalable and robust, with enterprise positioning and high implementation complexity” Perplexity Sonar · Commissions · comparative prompt · soft negative
“Major concern: Extremely long implementation times — averaging 8 months to go live” Kimi K2 · Commissions · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as SAP Commissions, over the 45 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP Commissions was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as SAP Commissions, over the 45 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP Commissions was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 SAP Commissions. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 45 of the 45 answers that named SAP Commissions and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
qobra.co29
captivateiq.com28
everstage.com28
varicent.com21
guideflow.com17
g2.com16
learn.g2.com16
forma.ai15
xactlycorp.com15
performio.co12
No domain is on file for SAP Commissions, so its own site is not marked.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where SAP Commissions stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where SAP Commissions stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 140 a month (“sap commissions”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 13 a month
- Its own site
- No site of its own on file, so no site figures
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 47 of 47 in commissions
Segment leader
25%
CaptivateIQ
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 45 answers
- Its own site cited
- No site on file to match
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
Names read as SAP Commissions
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as SAP Commissions; a claim can dispute any of them.
SAP 2SAP Commissions (formerly CallidusCloud) 1SAP SuccessFactors Incentive Management 1SAP SuccessFactors Incentive Management (formerly SAP Commissions) 1
Follow SAP Commissions
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.
The company
SAP is the company behind SAP Commissions.ShowHide
The company
SAP is the company behind SAP Commissions.
ShowHideOn record
Wikidata- Website
- sap.com
- Headquarters
- Walldorf, Germany
- Founded
- 1972
- Employees
- about 106,043 (2023)
- Ownership
- Public, SAP on Italian Stock Exchange
- Also from SAP
- SAP Address Validation, SAP Analytics Cloud, SAP Ariba, SAP Ariba CLM, SAP Ariba Contracts, SAP Billing, SAP Build Process Automation, SAP Business One and 40 more
Fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · Crunchbase
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 SAP Commissions'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 SAP Commissions, 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 SAP Commissions by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where SAP Commissions 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 SAP Commissions, 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.