Finance AI Index
Index › Planning and analysis › FP&A platforms › Planful vs Fathom
FP&A platforms · September 2026 Edition

Planful vs Fathom

Three of twelve models named Planful first on the direct prompt; zero named Fathom. Planful was named by eleven of the twelve models and Fathom by ten and Planful carries 36 labels and Fathom 10, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Planful

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

Fathom

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

First-choice share10%10%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate11%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#5A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.
Labels3610A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Planful 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 Planful · Vena vs Fathom · Pigment vs Planful

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.
PlanfulFirst choices, of twelve modelsFathom
Direct30
Paraphrase10
Comparative00
Budget-constrained051 against Planful
Scale-constrained10
Negative003 against Planful
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 Planful and Fathom stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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
Planful Fathom first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Planful on the left and Fathom on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Planful first, Fathom not the choice

3 of 12 modelsFathom was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Claude Haiku 4.5Planful alternatives: Pigment, Prophix, Vena
GPT-5.4 miniPlanful, Vena alternatives: Cube, Datarails
Perplexity SonarPlanful alternatives: Aleph, Centage, Pigment, Prophix, Vena

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.
Gemini 3.5 FlashDrivetrain alternatives: Bob Finance, Cube, Planful
DeepSeek V4 FlashDatarails alternatives: Planful, Prophix, Vena
GLM 4.7 FlashXPigment alternatives: Aleph, Centage, Cube, Datarails, Planful, Prophix, Vena, Workday Adaptive Planning

Neither was named

6 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Grok 4.1 FastCube, Vena alternatives: Datarails, Pigment
Mistral SmallCentage alternatives: Abacum, Aleph, Datarails, Workday Adaptive Planning
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 thirteen points.
Fathom13%#2 of 13
Planful0%#11 of 13
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Planful10%#4 of 16
Fathom10%#5 of 16
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Fathom is not named for this buyer.
Planful0%#11 of 12
Fathom—not named
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Planful

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

“Avoid or be cautious about enterprise platforms (Anaplan, Workday Adaptive, Planful, Pigment)” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“What to avoid when budget is tight ... overkill for a budget-conscious company” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Currently one of the leaders in this space. Excellent balance between a robust backend and a user-friendly frontend” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · first choice

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
Also compared
Vena vs PlanfulVena vs FathomPigment vs PlanfulPigment vs FathomClockwork vs PlanfulClockwork vs FathomPlanful vs CubePlanful vs ProphixPlanful vs DatarailsFathom vs CubeFathom vs ProphixFathom vs DatarailsAll 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.