Index › Planning and analysis › FP&A platforms › Clockwork vs Cube

FP&A platforms · September 2026 Edition

Clockwork vs Cube

Zero of twelve models named Clockwork first on the direct prompt; one named Cube. Clockwork was named by ten of the twelve models and Cube by twelve and Clockwork carries 13 labels and Cube 37, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Clockwork

accepted challenger

Named in four categories this edition.

Cube

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

First-choice share15%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate0%8%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.

Labels1337A count; the two differ.

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

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 FP&A platforms page.

By framing

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

ClockworkFirst choices, of twelve modelsCube

Direct01

Paraphrase02

Comparative00

Budget-constrained711 against Cube

Scale-constrained00

Negative012 against Cube

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 Clockwork and Cube 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

Clockwork

Cube

first choice

named as an alternative

argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Clockwork on the left and Cube on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Cube first, Clockwork not the choice

1 of 12 modelsClockwork was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

Grok 4.1 FastCube, Vena alternatives: Datarails, Pigment

Neither was the first choice, one was named

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

GPT-5.4 miniPlanful, Vena alternatives: Cube, Datarails

Gemini 3.5 FlashDrivetrain alternatives: Bob Finance, Cube, Planful

GLM 4.7 FlashXPigment alternatives: Aleph, Centage, Cube, Datarails, Planful, Prophix, Vena, Workday Adaptive Planning

Neither was named

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

Claude Haiku 4.5Planful alternatives: Pigment, Prophix, Vena

Perplexity SonarPlanful alternatives: Aleph, Centage, Pigment, Prophix, Vena

Mistral SmallCentage alternatives: Abacum, Aleph, Datarails, Workday Adaptive Planning

DeepSeek V4 FlashDatarails alternatives: Planful, Prophix, Vena

Llama 4 MaverickPigment alternatives: Aleph, Centage, Workday Adaptive Planning

Qwen 3.7 FlashPigment alternatives: Aleph, Centage, Datarails, Workday Adaptive Planning

Kimi K2Pigment alternatives: Aleph, Centage, Workday Adaptive Planning

MiniMax M2.5Pigment alternatives: Aleph, Centage, Datarails, Workday Adaptive Planning

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

Clockwork leads by fifty-one points.

Clockwork#1 of 13

Cube#3 of 13

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Clockwork leads by six points.

Clockwork#3 of 16

Cube#6 of 16

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

The order flips: Cube leads at enterprise.

Cube#7 of 12

Clockwork#– of 12

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Clockwork

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

“Clockwork is the best FP&A software for a limited budget due to its balance of features, ease of use, and transparent pricing” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice

“Clockwork is highlighted as a leading option that delivers forecasting, scenario planning, and an AI analyst from $149/month” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice

“The best FP&A software for a company with a limited budget is Clockwork, which is a strong overall option” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Cube

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

“Avoid pricier ones like Jirav (~$10K/year), Cube/Datarails ($1K+/month)” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · hard negative

“you quickly hit "guardrails"... still prone to broken formulas, version-control friction, and performance lag” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative

Also compared

Vena vs Clockwork Vena vs Cube Pigment vs Clockwork Pigment vs Cube Clockwork vs Planful Clockwork vs Fathom Clockwork vs Prophix Clockwork vs Datarails Planful vs Cube Fathom vs Cube Cube vs Prophix Cube vs Datarails All twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full FP&A platforms 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.