Every category where a model named Computershare GEMS 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
Entity management	Equity and corporate	0%	21 of 87	30%	10	criticized challenger

Movement

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

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

Direct7 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labels1

Comparative16 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative9 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative43 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

“Best for legal ops teams needing traceable entity records and jurisdiction-ready deadline visibility. Scores 9.2/10 for enterprises.” Mistral Small · Entity management · comparative prompt · alternative

“built for massive scale & complex hierarchies; focuses on data centralization over flashy UI” Grok 4.1 Fast · Entity management · comparative prompt · alternative

“Strong enterprise options for high-volume legal operations across many jurisdictions” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Entity management · comparative prompt · alternative

“GEMS and Fides by LegalOn are also strong contenders in these rankings” Perplexity Sonar · Entity management · direct 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.

“may be overly complex and expensive for smaller organizations or mid-market companies” Mistral Small · Entity management · negative prompt · soft negative

“long-established; powerful but often considered dated (desktop/VPN)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Entity management · scale prompt · soft negative

“Specific tools to approach with caution: ... GEMS” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Entity management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Computershare GEMS, over the 43 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Computershare GEMS was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Diligent Entities31 of 4310Not in the top three

Athennian31 of 438Not in the top three

CSC Entity Management30 of 431Not in the top three

EntityKeeper17 of 431Not in the top three

MinuteBox14 of 431Not in the top three

DiliTrust Governance Suite12 of 430Not in the top three

Wolters Kluwer Legisway11 of 430Not in the top three

Corporify10 of 430Not in the top three

CT Corporation Entity Management9 of 430Not in the top three

EnGlobe8 of 431Not 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 Computershare GEMS. 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 33 of the 43 answers that named Computershare GEMS and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

worldmetrics.org25

coverpin.com22

getapp.com18

gitnux.org18

anywherer.com17

techbullion.com17

f6s.com13

capterra.com12

diligent.com12

g2.com12

166 of the 166 domain citations in answers naming Computershare GEMS came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

coverpin.com/resources/top-10-entity-management-tools-compared22

worldmetrics.org/best/entity-software20

anywherer.com/best-corporate-entity-management-software17

techbullion.com/the-6-best-entity-management-tools-in-202617

worldmetrics.org/best/entity-management-software17

worldmetrics.org/best/corporate-entity-management-software12

worldmetrics.org/best/legal-entity-management-software12

capterra.com/entity-management-software11

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Computershare GEMS

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

GEMS 3Computershare 1Computershare GEMS (Global Entity Management System) 1GEMS (Computershare) 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 Computershare GEMS'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 Computershare GEMS, 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 computershare.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.