Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › WageFiling · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

WageFiling

2Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

2 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. WageFiling was named 2 times in Contractor payments, where Deel led with 27%. 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-market27 of 83

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In contractor payments · 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 WageFiling 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
Contractor payments	Spend and procurement	0%	27 of 83	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Deel at 27%

Movement

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

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

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.

“WageFiling operates as a federal e-file service at a flat $3.49 per form with no annual subscription” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Contractor payments · budget prompt · alternative

“WageFiling: Charges a transparent, flat per-form fee (approx. $3.49 per form)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Contractor payments · budget 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 WageFiling, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and WageFiling was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Square Payroll2 of 21Not in the top three

Melio1 of 21Not in the top three

Patriot Software1 of 21Not in the top three

Gusto1 of 20Not in the top three

OnPay1 of 20Not in the top three

QuickBooks Online1 of 20Not in the top three

Tax10991 of 20Not 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 WageFiling. 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 2 answers that named WageFiling and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

1099online.com1

beltstack.com1

bolto.com1

boomtax.com1

gusto.com1

itqlick.com1

playroll.com1

relayfi.com1

routable.com1

softwarefinder.com1

Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming WageFiling came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

1099online.com/blog/best-1099-misc-software1

1099online.com/blog/best-1099-nec-software1

beltstack.com/payroll/best-for/1099-contractors1

bolto.com/blog/best-1099-software-for-small-business1

boomtax.com/compare/best-1099-software1

gusto.com/resources/guides/best-contractor-payroll-software1

itqlick.com/1099-software/competitors1

playroll.com/blog/contractor-payroll-services1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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 WageFiling'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 WageFiling, 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 wagefiling.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.