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

Cash application · September 2026 Edition

Lunos vs Esker

Zero of twelve models named Lunos first on the direct prompt; three named Esker. Lunos was named by six of the twelve models and Esker by eleven and Lunos carries 11 labels and Esker 22, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Lunos

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

Esker

criticized challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

First-choice share7%7%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate0%27%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#4#5A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.

Labels1122A count; the two differ.

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

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 cash application page.

By framing

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

LunosFirst choices, of twelve modelsEsker

Direct03

Paraphrase10

Comparative00

Budget-constrained204 against Esker

Scale-constrained001 against Esker

Negative001 against Esker

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 Lunos 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

Lunos

Esker

first choice

named as an alternative

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

The direct prompt

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

Esker first, Lunos not the choice

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

Grok 4.1 FastEsker alternatives: Billtrust, Gaviti, HighRadius, Quadient Accounts Receivable

DeepSeek V4 FlashEsker, HighRadius alternatives: Gaviti, Monk, Versapay

GLM 4.7 FlashXEsker, Kolleno alternatives: Chaser, Gaviti, Monk, Quadient Accounts Receivable, Serrala, Stuut, Transparency / Transformance, Versapay

Neither was the first choice, one was named

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

Llama 4 MaverickUpflow alternatives: Bluecopa, Cashbook, Chaser, Lunos

Neither was named

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

Claude Haiku 4.5Versapay alternatives: Billtrust, Paystand, Quadient Accounts Receivable, Upflow

GPT-5.4 miniHighRadius alternatives: BlackLine Cash Application, Sidetrade

Gemini 3.5 FlashQuadient Accounts Receivable alternatives: Stuut, Tesorio, Upflow, Versapay

Perplexity SonarHighRadius alternatives: Billtrust, Kolleno, Upflow

Mistral SmallUpflow alternatives: Bluecopa, Cashbook, Chaser

Qwen 3.7 FlashHighRadius alternatives: AtoBi, BlackLine Cash Application, Trintech

Kimi K2HighRadius alternatives: Billtrust, Chaser, Versapay

MiniMax M2.5HighRadius alternatives: Monk

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

Lunos leads by four points.

Lunos#5 of 10

Esker#8 of 10

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Level: the same share of first choices.

Lunos#4 of 10

Esker#5 of 10

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

The order flips: Esker leads at enterprise.

Esker#3 of 7

Lunos#– of 7

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Lunos

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

“Best Pay-As-You-Go Solution: Lunos ... "I want zero monthly risk." | Lunos” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

“Lunos (backed by GoCardless/General Catalyst) is the strongest fit for mid-market” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Lunos – Best overall for a free/very low-cost start” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

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 the usual enterprise leaders like HighRadius, Billtrust, and Esker” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative

“Enterprise-class, custom-priced, typically six figures annually.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative

“1. Esker (G2: 4.3–4.5/5; Gartner Leader in Invoice-to-Cash 2024) ... Enterprise-grade AI automation for cash matching” Grok 4.1 Fast · direct prompt · first choice

“Esker or HighRadius are the safest bets if you want a proven, scalable platform” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice

“Kolleno and Esker are strong, mid‑market‑focused all‑rounders.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · first choice

Also compared

HighRadius vs Lunos HighRadius vs Esker Versapay vs Lunos Versapay vs Esker Upflow vs Lunos Upflow vs Esker Lunos vs Quadient Accounts Receivable Lunos vs Gaviti Esker vs Quadient Accounts Receivable Esker vs Gaviti All twenty-one 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.