Index › Receivables and billing › Cash application › BILL vs Esker

Cash application · October 2026 Edition

BILL vs Esker

Zero of fourteen models named BILL first on the direct prompt; zero named Esker. BILL was named by ten of the fourteen models and Esker by thirteen and BILL carries 13 labels and Esker 22, so the shares are not directly comparable.

BILL

accepted challenger

Named in fifteen categories this edition.

Esker

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

First-choice share9%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate8%23%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#3#8A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.

Labels1322A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, BILL reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Versapay was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. Versapay vs BILL · Versapay vs Esker · Upflow vs BILL

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen 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 cash application page.

By framing

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

BILLFirst choices, of fourteen modelsEsker

Direct00

Paraphrase301 against BILL · 1 against Esker

Comparative00

Budget-constrained10

Scale-constrained01

Negative004 against Esker

Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where BILL and Esker 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
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B

BILL

Esker

first choice

named as an alternative

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

The direct prompt

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

Neither was the first choice, one was named

2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.

GLM 4.7 FlashXHighRadius alternatives: Billtrust, Esker, Serrala, Stuut, Versapay

GPT-6 LunaBilltrust alternatives: Esker, HighRadius

Neither was named

12 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.

Claude Haiku 4.5HighRadius alternatives: Billtrust, Quadient Accounts Receivable, Versapay

GPT-5.4 miniBilltrust Unified AR alternatives: BlackLine Invoice-to-Cash, HighRadius Accounts Receivable Software

Gemini 3.5 FlashVersapay alternatives: Cashbook, HighRadius, Quadient Accounts Receivable, Upflow

Perplexity SonarHighRadius alternatives: Chaser, Rex, Upflow, Versapay

Grok 4.1 Fastno first choice alternatives: Billtrust, HighRadius, Quadient Accounts Receivable, Stuut, Versapay

Mistral SmallStuut alternatives: Versapay

DeepSeek V4 FlashStuut alternatives: Billtrust, Monk, SINGOA, Versapay

Llama 4 MaverickMonk alternatives: Cashbook, Gaviti, Upflow

Qwen 3.7 FlashGlid alternatives: BlackLine Cash Application, Tipalti, Workiva

Kimi K2Stuut alternatives: HighRadius, Quadient Accounts Receivable, Versapay

MiniMax M2.5no first choice

Muse Glimmer 30Bno first choice alternatives: NetSuite’s built-in cash application module

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

BILL leads by sixteen points.

BILL#1 of 16

Esker#13 of 16

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

BILL leads by six points.

BILL#3 of 14

Esker#8 of 14

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

BILL#– of 8

Esker#6 of 8

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about BILL

No label in this category carried a quote.

What the models said about Esker

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

“"Avoid for Your Criteria - Billtrust, Serrala, Esker, Versapay: Custom/transaction-based"” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative

“It is often recommended to avoid unless your payment volume justifies the cost” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative

“underperforms with variable billing, unstructured remittances, and non-standard invoice layouts common in mid-market companies” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative

“Mid-market options (Esker, Versapay, Quadient AR, Billtrust) may deliver 90% of the value at a fraction of the cost... Strong mid-market fit” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice

“If you have exceptionally document-heavy or multi-national billing operations ... these tools offer highly capable, SaaS-native AI matchers” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · alternative

Also compared

Versapay vs BILL Versapay vs Esker Upflow vs BILL Upflow vs Esker BILL vs HighRadius BILL vs Stuut BILL vs Kolleno BILL vs Billtrust HighRadius vs Esker Stuut vs Esker Kolleno vs Esker Billtrust vs Esker All twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full cash application 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.