Aeqium vs Lattice Compensation
Three of fourteen models named Aeqium first on the direct prompt; zero named Lattice Compensation. Aeqium was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Lattice Compensation by fourteen and Aeqium carries 32 labels and Lattice Compensation 29, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
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 management page.
By framing
AeqiumFirst choices, of fourteen modelsLattice Compensation
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Aeqium and Lattice Compensation were named in the same answer twenty-seven times, of the 77 answers naming Aeqium and the 60 naming Lattice Compensation. In those answers Lattice Compensation took the first choice zero times and Aeqium seven.
Every model, every framing
| 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 | |
Aeqium Lattice Compensation first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Aeqium on the left and Lattice Compensation on the right.The direct prompt
Aeqium first, Lattice Compensation an alternative
3 of 14 modelsLattice Compensation was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
Aeqium2%#– of 19Lattice Compensation2%#9 of 19Aeqium23%#2 of 18Lattice Compensation4%#4 of 18Aeqium2%#12 of 17Lattice Compensation0%#– of 17What the models said about Aeqium
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Best for mid-sized organizations (200 to 6,000 employees) replacing spreadsheet merit planning and prioritizing fast implementation” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Aeqium, Pave, and Lattice are the top recommendations due to their balance of features, scalability, and user-friendliness” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Start with SalaryCube or Aeqium for dedicated compensation management with strong mid-market capabilities.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Lattice Compensation
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“I recommend Pave or Lattice as top choices for salary planning and compensation review software” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“for performance-linked pay, Lattice is ideal” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Lattice Compensation / HiBob / ChartHop: If you already use one of these for performance management or HRIS, evaluating their native compensation modules can save cost” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · alternative
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.