Lease accounting · September 2026 Edition
SOFT4Lessee vs Crunchafi
Two of twelve models named SOFT4Lessee first on the direct prompt; zero named Crunchafi. SOFT4Lessee was named by seven of the twelve models and Crunchafi by nine and SOFT4Lessee carries 10 labels and Crunchafi 15, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share6%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%7%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels1015A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, SOFT4Lessee reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.FinQuery was named alongside these two in eleven of the twelve direct answers. FinQuery vs SOFT4Lessee · FinQuery vs Crunchafi · iLeasePro vs SOFT4Lessee
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve 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 lease accounting page.
By framing
How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
SOFT4LesseeFirst choices, of twelve modelsCrunchafi
Direct20
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained01
Scale-constrained10
Negative001 against Crunchafi
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.
Every model, every framing
The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where SOFT4Lessee and Crunchafi 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 4.1 Fast | | | ||||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | ||||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | |
SOFT4Lessee Crunchafi first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, SOFT4Lessee on the left and Crunchafi on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where SOFT4Lessee and Crunchafi stood in it.
SOFT4Lessee first, Crunchafi not the choice
2 of 12 modelsCrunchafi was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5SOFT4Lessee alternatives: EZLease, FinQuery, Trullion, Visual Lease
Mistral SmallFinQuery, SOFT4Lessee alternatives: EZLease, Trullion, Visual Lease
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashFinQuery alternatives: NetLease, SOFT4Lessee, Trullion, Visual Lease
Perplexity SonarFinQuery, Spacebase alternatives: EZLease, SOFT4Lessee, Visual Lease
DeepSeek V4 FlashFinQuery alternatives: Crunchafi, LeaseCrunch, NetLease, Visual Lease
Llama 4 MaverickiLeasePro alternatives: EZLease, LeaseAccelerator, Leasecake, SOFT4Lessee
GLM 4.7 FlashXFinQuery, Visual Lease alternatives: DebtBook, SOFT4Lessee, iLeasePro
Neither was named
5 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniFinQuery alternatives: Nakisa Lease Administration, Sage Intacct, UGAAP, Yardi Corom, iLeasePro
Grok 4.1 FastFinQuery alternatives: EZLease, Visual Lease
Qwen 3.7 FlashFinQuery alternatives: EZLease, Spacebase, iLeasePro
Kimi K2FinQuery alternatives: EZLease, iLeasePro
MiniMax M2.5FinQuery, Visual Lease alternatives: Spacebase
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
Crunchafi leads by two points.
Crunchafi2%#6 of 9SOFT4Lessee0%#– of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: SOFT4Lessee leads at mid-market.
SOFT4Lessee6%#5 of 12Crunchafi2%#7 of 12Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
SOFT4Lessee0%#– of 10Crunchafi0%#– of 10What the models said about SOFT4Lessee
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Overall best for mid‑sized companies ... SOFT4Lessee for a balanced mid‑market choice” GLM 4.7 FlashX · scale prompt · first choice
“FinQuery (LeaseQuery) and SOFT4Lessee are the top recommendations” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
“SOFT4Lessee is the best first shortlist option” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Crunchafi
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Data entry inaccuracies, lack of OCR for lease abstraction, cumbersome journal entries” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · hard negative
“Crunchafi offers a per-lease pricing model that gives budget-conscious buyers a concrete cost basis” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Best for: Companies that want pay-per-lease scalability rather than fixed monthly subscriptions, especially CPA firms.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · alternative
“Best for: Companies that prefer a pay-as-you-go model or work closely with an external CPA firm.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared
FinQuery vs SOFT4LesseeFinQuery vs CrunchafiiLeasePro vs SOFT4LesseeiLeasePro vs CrunchafiVisual Lease vs SOFT4LesseeVisual Lease vs CrunchafiEZLease vs SOFT4LesseeEZLease vs CrunchafiSOFT4Lessee vs TrullionTrullion vs CrunchafiAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full lease accounting 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.