Time and attendance · November 2026 Edition
Clockify vs Connecteam
Zero of fourteen models named Clockify first on the direct prompt; zero named Connecteam. Clockify was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Connecteam by fourteen and Clockify carries 28 labels and Connecteam 40, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in six categories this edition.
Named in eighteen categories this edition.
First-choice share12%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate11%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#8A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels2840A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Clockify reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Rippling was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Rippling vs Clockify · Rippling vs Connecteam · Clockify vs Homebase
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the time and attendance page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ClockifyFirst choices, of fourteen modelsConnecteam
Direct001 against Clockify
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained611 against Clockify
Scale-constrained001 against Clockify
Negative00
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Clockify and Connecteam stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | | ||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | |||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | |||
| Kimi K2 | | | | |||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | ||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | |
Clockify Connecteam first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Clockify on the left and Connecteam on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Clockify and Connecteam stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Paycom alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Connecteam, Paylocity, Rippling
GPT-5.4 miniUKG Ready alternatives: Connecteam, Gusto, QuickBooks Time, Rippling
Perplexity SonarRippling alternatives: BambooHR Time Tracking, Connecteam, Deputy, Paycor, Synerion, UKG Ready
DeepSeek V4 FlashTCP Humanity alternatives: Buddy Punch, Connecteam, Deputy, Rippling, UKG Ready
GLM 4.7 FlashXDeputy, Rippling alternatives: Connecteam, QuickBooks Time, Synerion, TimeCamp
MiniMax M2.5Deputy, Rippling alternatives: Connecteam, Paylocity, UKG Ready
Muse Glimmer 30BDeputy, Synerion alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, Connecteam, TimeClock Plus, UKG Pro Workforce Management
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Gemini 3.5 FlashRippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, ClickTime, Paylocity, Replicon, UKG Ready
Grok 4.20Rippling alternatives: Paycom, UKG Ready
Mistral SmallSynerion alternatives: Factorial, Microsoft Teams, isolved Time
Llama 4 MaverickSynerion alternatives: Factorial, Microsoft Teams, isolved Time
Qwen 3.7 FlashDeputy alternatives: OnTheClock, QuickBooks Time, Synerion
Kimi K2Rippling alternatives: Paylocity, Synerion, UKG Ready
GPT-6 LunaRippling alternatives: ADP Workforce Now, UKG Ready
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Clockify leads by thirteen points.
Clockify15%#2 of 17Connecteam2%#12 of 17Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: Connecteam leads at enterprise.
Connecteam2%#10 of 13Clockify0%#– of 13What the models said about Clockify
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of five in this category shown.
“Avoid basic time trackers like Clockify unless your needs are simple” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · hard negative
“I wouldn't choose Clockify just because its free plan is generous: its attendance and overtime reporting are on a paid tier” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · soft negative
“Clockify / Toggl (more basic, free tier available)” MiniMax M2.5 · scale prompt · soft negative
“Clockify's unlimited free plan makes it the go-to time and attendance solution for bootstrapped teams” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Homebase (free tier) or Clockify (free up to 5 users) are excellent starting points” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Connecteam
No label in this category carried a quote.
Also compared
Rippling vs ClockifyRippling vs ConnecteamClockify vs HomebaseClockify vs Toggl TrackClockify vs DeputyClockify vs JibbleClockify vs TimeCampHomebase vs ConnecteamToggl Track vs ConnecteamDeputy vs ConnecteamJibble vs ConnecteamTimeCamp vs ConnecteamAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full time and attendance standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.