Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 70 → 92 of 94
Computershare · 1 category · RankedComputershare GEMS
41Judge labels
1First choices
26Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in Entity management for enterprise buyers
Rank 80 of 81 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 73% of its 11 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Computershare GEMS →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business97 of 99
0%7 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market80 of 81
0%11 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise11 of 89
2%23 labels
criticized challenger
In entity management · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named Computershare GEMS for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entity management | Equity and corporate | 0% | 80 of 81 | 73% | 11 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Computershare GEMS held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Entity management · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 19 → 78 of 79
Enterprise▲+1Since September 2026: 2% → 3%, +1 point. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
3%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 6 → 11 of 77
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entity management | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 19 → 80 of 81 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 10 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Computershare GEMS across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Computershare GEMS across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
By framing
Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.
FramingLabels by classFirst choices
Direct3 labels1
Paraphrase4 labelsNone
Comparative9 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained2 labelsNone
Scale-constrained3 labelsNone
Negative20 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative41 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 2 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
No positive label carried a quote.
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“"Heavy Corporate Services Firms (e.g., CSC Global, Intertrust, Computershare) ... overly complex and expensive"” Muse Glimmer 30B · Entity management · negative prompt · hard negative
“designed for the largest, most jurisdictionally complex portfolios, but a mid-market team with a dozen entities would carry capability and onboarding effort well beyond what its structure actually calls for” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Entity management · negative prompt · soft negative
“these systems are typically too expensive, require lengthy implementation processes, and are overly complex for mid-market needs” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Entity management · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“such as CSC Global, Intertrust, and Computershare. These are often considered overly complex and expensive” Mistral Small · Entity management · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Computershare GEMS, over the 40 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Computershare GEMS was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Computershare GEMS, over the 40 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Computershare GEMS was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.
What carried it into the answer
The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Computershare GEMS. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 39 of the 40 answers that named Computershare GEMS and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
discern.com19
diligent.com18
teamed.global18
finance-ai-index.com16
g2.com16
worldmetrics.org14
softwareadvice.com13
verifiedmarketresearch.com13
commenda.io12
getapp.com12
151 of the 151 domain citations in answers naming Computershare GEMS came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
computershare.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Computershare GEMS takes 0% of first choices and Athennian takes 41%.ShowHide
Search and answers
computershare.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Computershare GEMS takes 0% of first choices and Athennian takes 41%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “entity management tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “legal entity management software”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 90 a month (“computershare gems”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Its company's site
- computershare.com shared with Computershare's other products; the figures are the site's
- Organic visits to its site
- about 416,475 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 5,367 · 1,305 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 7,129
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 80 of 81 in entity management
Segment leader
41%
Athennian
- First choices
- 1 across its categories
- Named in
- 40 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 39 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
Names read as Computershare GEMS
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Computershare GEMS; a claim can dispute any of them.
Computershare 4Computershare GEMS (Global Entity Management System) 1GEMS (Global Entity Management System) 1
Follow Computershare GEMS
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Computershare is the company behind Computershare GEMS.ShowHide
The company
Computershare is the company behind Computershare GEMS.
ShowHideOn record
Company records- Also from Computershare
- Computershare Board Portal
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Experience entity management like never before with Computershare’s Global Entity Management System, GEMS. Streamline processes, increase collaboration, and minimise risk, all with one secure platform.
- For
- Businesses managing a large entity portfolio
- Free plan or trial
- complimentary demo computershare.com/au/business/entity-solutions/global-entity-management-system
- Customers named
- Landsec Secretariat Team
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting
What Computershare GEMS's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: computershare.com/au/business/entity-solutions/global-entity-management-system, computershare.com/dk/erhverv/selskabslosninger/global-entity-management-system, computershare.com/de/business/entity-solutions/global-entity-management-system, computershare.com/ie/business/entity-solutions/global-entity-management-system, computershare.com/nz/business/entity-solutions/global-entity-management-system. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Is this your product?
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Computershare GEMS's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Computershare GEMS, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Computershare GEMS by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Computershare GEMS is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Computershare GEMS, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.