Internal communications and intranet · November 2026 Edition
Connecteam vs Workvivo
Zero of fourteen models named Connecteam first on the direct prompt; zero named Workvivo. Connecteam was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Workvivo by fourteen and Connecteam carries 16 labels and Workvivo 48, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in eighteen categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share9%5%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%8%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#8A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels1648A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Connecteam reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Simpplr was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Simpplr vs Connecteam · Simpplr vs Workvivo · Microsoft SharePoint vs Connecteam
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 internal communications and intranet page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ConnecteamFirst choices, of fourteen modelsWorkvivo
Direct001 against Workvivo
Paraphrase02
Comparative00
Budget-constrained503 against Workvivo
Scale-constrained01
Negative03
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 Connecteam and Workvivo 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 | | | |
Connecteam Workvivo first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Connecteam on the left and Workvivo on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Connecteam and Workvivo stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniMicrosoft SharePoint alternatives: Axero, Connecteam, Workvivo
Gemini 3.5 FlashSimpplr alternatives: Guru, Happeo, Microsoft SharePoint, Microsoft Viva, Notion, Staffbase, Workvivo
Perplexity SonarThoughtFarmer alternatives: Jostle, Powell Intranet, Workvivo
Grok 4.20Simpplr alternatives: Haiilo, Interact, Jostle, Unily, Workvivo
Llama 4 MaverickJostle alternatives: Haiilo, LumApps, Simpplr, Workvivo
Qwen 3.7 FlashSimpplr alternatives: LumApps, MangoApps, Unily, Workvivo
MiniMax M2.5Simpplr alternatives: LumApps, Workvivo
Muse Glimmer 30BMyHub Intranet, ThoughtFarmer alternatives: Simpplr, Workvivo
Neither was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice
Mistral SmallJostle alternatives: Interact, Microsoft SharePoint, MyHub Intranet, Simpplr, ThoughtFarmer
DeepSeek V4 FlashJostle, ThoughtFarmer alternatives: Microsoft SharePoint
Kimi K2Jostle alternatives: Blink, Simpplr
GLM 4.7 FlashXSimpplr alternatives: Blink, Jostle, ThoughtFarmer
GPT-6 LunaSharePoint in Teams, Simpplr alternatives: Happeo, Staffbase
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
Connecteam leads by five points.
Connecteam5%#6 of 18Workvivo0%#18 of 18Mid-marketThe figures above
Connecteam leads by four points.
Connecteam9%#5 of 15Workvivo5%#8 of 15Enterprise
The order flips: Workvivo leads at enterprise.
Workvivo4%#6 of 11Connecteam0%#– of 11What the models said about Connecteam
No label in this category carried a quote.
What the models said about Workvivo
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Avoid enterprise platforms like Workvivo, Simpplr, or Staffbase” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Avoid: Enterprise tools like Simpplr, Workvivo, or Staffbase” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“$20,000+ one-time cost — may be pricey for smaller mid-market companies; more geared toward larger orgs” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · soft negative
“Safer Alternatives to Consider... Workvivo, Simpplr, Happeo, Staffbase — built with security-first architecture” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · first choice
“Better Alternatives ... Workvivo | 4.8/5 | Social feed, mobile-friendly for frontline, strong engagement” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · first choice
“Prefer modern, cloud-native options with strong track records: Simpplr, Workvivo, LumApps” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Simpplr vs ConnecteamSimpplr vs WorkvivoMicrosoft SharePoint vs ConnecteamMicrosoft SharePoint vs WorkvivoMicrosoft Teams vs ConnecteamMicrosoft Teams vs WorkvivoJostle vs ConnecteamJostle vs WorkvivoConnecteam vs SlackConnecteam vs Google WorkspaceSlack vs WorkvivoGoogle Workspace vs WorkvivoAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full internal communications 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.