Succession planning · November 2026 Edition
SuccessionNow vs ChartHop
Three of fourteen models named SuccessionNow first on the direct prompt; zero named ChartHop. SuccessionNow was named by eleven of the fourteen models and ChartHop by ten and SuccessionNow carries 26 labels and ChartHop 16, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in seven categories this edition.
First-choice share9%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate4%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels2616A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, SuccessionNow reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.TalentGuard Succession Planning was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. Lattice vs SuccessionNow · Lattice vs ChartHop · PerformYard vs SuccessionNow
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 succession planning page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
SuccessionNowFirst choices, of fourteen modelsChartHop
Direct30
Paraphrase00
Comparative20
Budget-constrained211 against SuccessionNow
Scale-constrained00
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 SuccessionNow and ChartHop 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 | | |
SuccessionNow ChartHop first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, SuccessionNow on the left and ChartHop on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where SuccessionNow and ChartHop stood in it.
SuccessionNow first, ChartHop an alternative
3 of 14 modelsChartHop was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Mistral SmallSuccessionNow, SuccessionStack alternatives: Disprz, TalentGuard Succession Planning
Kimi K2PerformYard, SuccessionNow alternatives: Paycom, Teamflect, UKG Ready
MiniMax M2.5PerformYard, SuccessionNow alternatives: ChartHop, Eightfold AI
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Grok 4.20PerformYard alternatives: ClayHR, Disprz, SuccessionNow, TalentGuard Succession Planning
GLM 4.7 FlashXDisprz alternatives: Lattice, Neobrain, PerformYard, SuccessionNow, TalentGuard Succession Planning
Muse Glimmer 30BSuccessionStack alternatives: PerformYard, SuccessionNow
Neither was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Engagedly alternatives: Cornerstone Succession, Lattice, Peoplebox
GPT-5.4 miniLattice alternatives: Cornerstone Succession, PerformYard
Gemini 3.5 FlashLattice, Leapsome alternatives: HiBob, SuccessionHR, TalentGuard Succession Planning, Teamflect
Perplexity SonarPeoplebox alternatives: Dayforce, Engagedly, Lattice, TalentGuard Succession Planning
DeepSeek V4 FlashTalentGuard Succession Planning alternatives: Disprz, Neobrain, UKG Pro Succession Planning
Llama 4 MaverickDisprz, Neobrain, TalentGuard Succession Planning
Qwen 3.7 FlashDisprz alternatives: Neobrain, PerformYard, TalentGuard Succession Planning
GPT-6 LunaLattice alternatives: Engagedly, Your existing HCM's succession module
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
SuccessionNow leads by ten points.
SuccessionNow10%#3 of 13ChartHop0%#– of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
SuccessionNow leads by eight points.
SuccessionNow9%#3 of 12ChartHop2%#6 of 12Enterprise
SuccessionNow leads by two points.
SuccessionNow2%#9 of 13ChartHop0%#12 of 13What the models said about SuccessionNow
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“it's less ideal for very tight budgets—pricing starts at ~$2,995/year flat rate” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · soft negative
“If your priority is a focused succession solution with minimal complexity: Consider SuccessionNow, PerformYard, or SuccessionHR.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
“If you ONLY care about who replaces the CEO/Director: Go with SuccessionNow. It is purpose-built and avoids "bloat."” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“I'd suggest starting with PerformYard or SuccessionNow if you want a dedicated succession planning tool” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about ChartHop
No label in this category carried a quote.
Also compared
Lattice vs SuccessionNowLattice vs ChartHopPerformYard vs SuccessionNowPerformYard vs ChartHopSuccessionNow vs TeamflectSuccessionNow vs TalentGuard Succession PlanningTeamflect vs ChartHopTalentGuard Succession Planning vs ChartHopAll fifteen head-to-head pages and the full succession planning 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.