Every category where a model named Juicebox 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
Strategic sourcing	Spend and procurement	0%	20 of 127	0%	9	under 10 labels · led by Precoro at 17%

Movement

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

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	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	2	0	2
Mistral Small	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	2	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative17 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative19 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 2 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.

“Budget-conscious | Juicebox or ContactOut | Affordable AI search + contact finding” Kimi K2 · Strategic sourcing · comparative prompt · alternative

“Lean teams or agencies wanting automation → AI agents (Noon, Juicebox, Pin)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Strategic sourcing · comparative prompt · alternative

“plus Fetcher, Juicebox, and Loxo (free tiers) are easier to evaluate on merit” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Strategic sourcing · negative prompt · alternative

“free tiers (e.g., Juicebox, Loxo) often suffice for small teams” Grok 4.1 Fast · Strategic sourcing · negative 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 Juicebox, over the 19 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Juicebox was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Gem16 of 194Not in the top three

HireEZ14 of 191Not in the top three

Loxo13 of 192Not in the top three

Manatal13 of 191Not in the top three

SeekOut12 of 190Not in the top three

LinkedIn Recruiter11 of 191Not in the top three

Fetcher9 of 190Not in the top three

ContactOut8 of 190Not in the top three

Findem7 of 190Not in the top three

Pin5 of 191Not 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 Juicebox. 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 18 of the 19 answers that named Juicebox and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

selectsoftwarereviews.com16

leonar.app12

firsthr.app10

juicebox.aiYour site10

dishertalent.com8

sitepoint.com8

hiretruffle.com6

metaview.ai6

pin.com6

sourcingtools.org6

Seventy-eight of the eighty-eight domain citations in answers naming Juicebox came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

selectsoftwarereviews.com/buyer-guide/best-candidate-sourcing-tools16

leonar.app/blog/best-talent-sourcing-platforms12

firsthr.app/compare/hiring/sourcing-tools10

dishertalent.com/blog/sourcing-tools-review8

sitepoint.com/best-sourcing-tools-for-recruiters8

juicebox.ai/blog/best-sourcing-tools-for-recruiters6

matchr.io/blog/top-40-best-sourcing-tools5

metaview.ai/resources/blog/sourcing-tools-for-recruiters5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Juicebox

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

Juicebox.ai 3Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 1Juicebox.ai (PeopleGPT) 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 Juicebox'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 Juicebox, 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 juicebox.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.