Index › HR › Compensation and total rewards › Compensation benchmarkin › Glassdoor vs Radford
Compensation benchmarking data · November 2026 Edition

Glassdoor vs Radford

Zero of fourteen models named Glassdoor first on the direct prompt; zero named Radford. Glassdoor was named by ten of the fourteen models and Radford by twelve and Glassdoor carries 16 labels and Radford 21, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Glassdoor

criticized challenger

Named in four categories this edition.

Radford

criticized challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate38%48%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels1621A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Glassdoor 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 Glassdoor · Payscale vs Radford · Pave vs Glassdoor

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.
GlassdoorFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRadford
Direct001 against Glassdoor · 3 against Radford
Paraphrase011 against Radford
Comparative01
Budget-constrained201 against Radford
Scale-constrained004 against Glassdoor · 2 against Radford
Negative001 against Glassdoor · 3 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.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Glassdoor and Radford were named in the same answer twenty-four times, of the 82 answers naming Glassdoor and the 73 naming Radford. In those answers Radford took the first choice one time and Glassdoor zero.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Glassdoor and Radford stood in it.
ModelDirectRAParaphraseRAComparativeRABudget-constrainedRAScale-constrainedRANegativeRA
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 miniRA
Gemini 3.5 FlashRARARA
Perplexity SonarRA
Grok 4.20RARARA
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 FlashRARARA
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 FlashRA
Kimi K2RARA
GLM 4.7 FlashXRA
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30BRA
GlassdoorRA Radford first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Glassdoor on the left and Radford on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Glassdoor and Radford stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

1 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

Neither was named

13 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
Qwen 3.7 FlashComprehensive.io alternatives: Figures, Pave, Payscale, Salary.com CompAnalyst
GLM 4.7 FlashXFigures, SalaryCube Comp Planning alternatives: Pave, Salary.com CompAnalyst
MiniMax M2.5CompAnalyst, Payscale alternatives: Pave
GPT-6 LunaPayscale alternatives: Pave
Muse Glimmer 30BPayscale alternatives: CompAnalyst, Comprehensive.io, Pave, Salary.com CompAnalyst, SalaryCube

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
Glassdoor leads by three points.
Glassdoor3%#5 of 10
Radford0%#10 of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Glassdoor leads by two points.
Glassdoor4%#5 of 9
Radford2%#7 of 9
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Radford leads at enterprise.
Radford5%#4 of 9
Glassdoor0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Glassdoor

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 those relying heavily on unverified crowdsourced data (e.g., from Glassdoor or Levels.fyi), as it can be biased or inflated.” Grok 4.20 · scale prompt · hard negative
“you're too large for free/consumer tools (Glassdoor, BLS) — those won't have the granularity or credibility you need” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · hard negative
“start with BLS + Glassdoor combined. This combination provides accurate, defensible data for most common positions at zero cost.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“start with free tools (BLS OEWS + Glassdoor) to get a solid baseline” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“Best For: Quick market checks, especially for office jobs and white-collar roles.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · alternative

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

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.