Index › Planning and analysis › Financial modeling › Google Sheets vs Planful

Financial modeling and scenario planning · September 2026 Edition

Google Sheets vs Planful

Zero of twelve models named Google Sheets first on the direct prompt; zero named Planful. Google Sheets was named by eight of the twelve models and Planful by eleven and Google Sheets carries 10 labels and Planful 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Google Sheets

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

Planful

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

First-choice share13%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate0%11%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#2#6A position in a field of 8; printed, not drawn.

Labels1018A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Google Sheets reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Datarails was named alongside these two in ten of the twelve direct answers. Datarails vs Google Sheets · Datarails vs Planful · Google Sheets vs Cube

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 financial modeling and scenario planning page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.

Google SheetsFirst choices, of twelve modelsPlanful

Direct001 against Planful

Paraphrase02

Comparative00

Budget-constrained60

Scale-constrained001 against Planful

Negative00

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 Google Sheets and Planful 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

Google Sheets

Planful

first choice

named as an alternative

argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Google Sheets on the left and Planful on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Google Sheets and Planful stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

7 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.

Gemini 3.5 FlashMosaic, Pigment alternatives: Centage Planning Maestro, Cube, Datarails, Planful, Vena

Perplexity SonarDatarails, Drivetrain alternatives: Anaplan, Planful, Vena

Mistral SmallDatarails, Limelight alternatives: Cube, Planful, Vena

DeepSeek V4 FlashLimelight alternatives: Abacum, Cube, Datarails, Pigment, Planful

Qwen 3.7 FlashCube alternatives: Fathom, Float, Jedox, Jirav, Planful, Vena

GLM 4.7 FlashXDatarails alternatives: Cube, Drivetrain, Mosaic, Planful

MiniMax M2.5Datarails alternatives: Cube, Planful

Neither was named

5 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.

Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice

GPT-5.4 miniDatarails alternatives: Abacum, Anaplan

Grok 4.1 FastCube, Datarails alternatives: Drivetrain, Limelight, Pigment, Vena

Llama 4 MaverickDatarails alternatives: Abacum, Cube, Lucanet xP&A, Mosaic, Vena

Kimi K2Datarails alternatives: Aleph, Centage Planning Maestro, Cube

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

Google Sheets leads by six points.

Google Sheets#8 of 13

Planful#– of 13

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Google Sheets leads by nine points.

Google Sheets#2 of 8

Planful#6 of 8

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

Google Sheets#– of 7

Planful#– of 7

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Google Sheets

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“Start with Google Sheets or Excel, and optionally use EasyFinancialModels for templates.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice

“Microsoft Excel or Google Sheets remain the practical sweet spot” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice

“includes options like Google Sheets or Excel, which are free or low-cost” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Planful

No label in this category carried a quote.

Also compared

Datarails vs Google Sheets Datarails vs Planful Google Sheets vs Cube Google Sheets vs Microsoft Excel Google Sheets vs Vena Google Sheets vs Workday Adaptive Planning Cube vs Planful Microsoft Excel vs Planful Vena vs Planful Planful vs Workday Adaptive Planning All twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full financial modeling 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.