Index › HR › Compensation and total rewards › Compensation benchmarkin › Comprehensive.io vs Radford
Compensation benchmarking data · November 2026 Edition
Comprehensive.io vs Radford
One of fourteen models named Comprehensive.io first on the direct prompt; zero named Radford. Comprehensive.io was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Radford by twelve and Comprehensive.io carries 15 labels and Radford 21, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Radford
criticized challengerNamed in three categories this edition.
First-choice share9%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%48%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels1521A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Comprehensive.io reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Pave was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Payscale vs Comprehensive.io · Payscale vs Radford · Pave vs Comprehensive.io
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 compensation benchmarking data page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Comprehensive.ioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRadfordDirect103 against Radford
Paraphrase011 against Radford
Comparative01
Budget-constrained401 against Radford
Scale-constrained002 against Radford
Negative003 against Radford
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 Comprehensive.io and Radford stood in it.
| Model | DirectRA | ParaphraseRA | ComparativeRA | Budget-constrainedRA | Scale-constrainedRA | NegativeRA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | RA | |||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | RA | RA | RA | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | | RA | ||||
| Grok 4.20 | RA | RA | RA | |||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | RA | | RA | RA | ||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | RA | |||
| Kimi K2 | RA | RA | | |||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | RA | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | ||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | RA |
Comprehensive.ioRA Radford first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Comprehensive.io on the left and Radford on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Comprehensive.io and Radford stood in it.
Comprehensive.io first, Radford not the choice
1 of 14 modelsRadford was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Qwen 3.7 FlashComprehensive.io alternatives: Figures, Pave, Payscale, Salary.com CompAnalyst
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Kimi K2Payscale alternatives: Mercer Total Remuneration Survey, Pave, Radford, Salary.com CompAnalyst
Muse Glimmer 30BPayscale alternatives: CompAnalyst, Comprehensive.io, Pave, Salary.com CompAnalyst, SalaryCube
Neither was named
11 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Pave, SalaryCube alternatives: CompUp, OpenComp, Payscale Ascent
GPT-5.4 miniSalary.com CompAnalyst alternatives: Compensation-IQ, Pave, Payscale Ascent
Gemini 3.5 FlashPave alternatives: Carta Total Compensation, Payscale, Salary.com CompAnalyst
Perplexity SonarPayscale alternatives: Pave, Ravio, SalaryCube
Grok 4.20Payscale alternatives: Pave, Ravio, Salary.com CompAnalyst
Mistral SmallPave alternatives: Mercer Total Remuneration Survey, Payscale
DeepSeek V4 FlashPayscale alternatives: Mercer Benchmark Database, Pave, Ravio, SalaryCube
Llama 4 MaverickSalaryCube alternatives: Mercer Total Remuneration Survey, Pave, Payscale
GLM 4.7 FlashXFigures, SalaryCube Comp Planning alternatives: Pave, Salary.com CompAnalyst
MiniMax M2.5CompAnalyst, Payscale alternatives: Pave
GPT-6 LunaPayscale alternatives: Pave
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
Comprehensive.io leads by seven points.
Comprehensive.io7%#4 of 10Radford0%#10 of 10
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Comprehensive.io leads by seven points.
Comprehensive.io9%#3 of 9Radford2%#7 of 9
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
The order flips: Radford leads at enterprise.
Radford5%#4 of 9
Comprehensive.io0%#– of 9What the models said about Comprehensive.io
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Pave's free Market Data Lite tier and Comprehensive's free salary data both give small teams real numbers at no cost” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Comprehensive.io - offers free, daily-refreshed tech salary data with no survey submission requirement.” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
“The Top All-Rounder: Comprehensive.io ... frequently cited as the best fit for the mid-market segment” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Radford
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Providers to avoid or use carefully include: - Mercer, Willis Towers Watson (WTW), and Radford when the budget is tight” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid for Mid-Market: Radford (Aon), Mercer, or Willis Towers Watson” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · hard negative
“Large vendors (like Radford) rely on hundreds of massive companies to build benchmarks... avoid the heavy enterprise platforms unless you have a dedicated Compensation Manager” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · soft negative
“Radford provides deep traditional global enterprise data; Pave offers real-time API integrations” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“It is widely considered the gold standard for tech and SaaS.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Radford excels in private company data (including VC/PE-backed firms) and has massive participation” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · alternative
Also compared
Payscale vs Comprehensive.ioPayscale vs RadfordPave vs Comprehensive.ioPave vs RadfordComprehensive.io vs Salary.com CompAnalystComprehensive.io vs GlassdoorComprehensive.io vs Mercer Total Remuneration SurveyComprehensive.io vs Willis Towers WatsonSalary.com CompAnalyst vs RadfordGlassdoor vs RadfordMercer Total Remuneration Survey vs RadfordRadford vs Willis Towers WatsonAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full compensation benchmarkin 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.