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

FP&A platforms · September 2026 Edition

Fathom vs Cube

Zero of twelve models named Fathom first on the direct prompt; one named Cube. Fathom was named by ten of the twelve models and Cube by twelve and Fathom carries 10 labels and Cube 37, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Fathom

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

Cube

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

First-choice share10%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#5#6A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.

Labels1037A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Fathom 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 Fathom · Vena vs Cube · Pigment vs Fathom

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.

FathomFirst choices, of twelve modelsCube

Direct01

Paraphrase02

Comparative00

Budget-constrained511 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.

Across every category in the September 2026 Edition, Fathom and Cube were named in the same answer seventy-three times, of the 224 answers naming Fathom and the 311 naming Cube. In those answers Cube took the first choice ten times and Fathom twenty.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Fathom 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

Fathom

Cube

first choice

named as an alternative

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

The direct prompt

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

Cube first, Fathom not the choice

1 of 12 modelsFathom 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

Fathom leads by four points.

Fathom#2 of 13

Cube#3 of 13

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Fathom leads by two points.

Fathom#5 of 16

Cube#6 of 16

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Fathom is not named for this buyer.

Cube#7 of 12

Fathomnot named

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Fathom

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

“Fathom (cheapest) or Clockwork (best overall for forecasting + AI) are your strongest picks” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

“Fathom – Best Value for Money ... Fathom is the most cost-effective professional solution” Kimi K2 · 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 Fathom Vena vs Cube Pigment vs Fathom Pigment vs Cube Clockwork vs Fathom Clockwork vs Cube Planful vs Fathom Planful vs Cube Fathom vs Prophix Fathom vs Datarails 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.