Expense management · September 2026 Edition
Rippling Spend vs SAP Concur
Two of twelve models named Rippling Spend first on the direct prompt; zero named SAP Concur. Both were named by all twelve models and Rippling Spend carries 24 labels and SAP Concur 40, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in seven categories this edition.
First-choice share9%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%32%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#8A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels2440A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Rippling Spend reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Navan was named alongside these two in ten of the twelve direct answers. Ramp vs Rippling Spend · Ramp vs SAP Concur · Zoho Expense vs Rippling Spend
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 expense management page.
By framing
How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Rippling SpendFirst choices, of twelve modelsSAP Concur
Direct201 against SAP Concur
Paraphrase212 against SAP Concur
Comparative01
Budget-constrained002 against SAP Concur
Scale-constrained002 against SAP Concur
Negative006 against SAP Concur
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 Rippling Spend and SAP Concur 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 | |
Rippling Spend SAP Concur first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Rippling Spend on the left and SAP Concur on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Rippling Spend and SAP Concur stood in it.
Rippling Spend first, SAP Concur an alternative
2 of 12 modelsSAP Concur was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniRippling Spend alternatives: Navan, SAP Concur
MiniMax M2.5Rippling Spend alternatives: Airbase, Emburse, Navan, SAP Concur
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Navan alternatives: Ramp, SAP Concur
Gemini 3.5 FlashRamp alternatives: Airbase, Brex, Navan, Rippling Spend
Perplexity SonarRamp alternatives: Airbase, Expensify, Navan, SAP Concur, Spendesk
Grok 4.1 FastRamp alternatives: Navan, SAP Concur
DeepSeek V4 FlashRamp alternatives: Airwallex, Brex, Navan, SAP Concur
Qwen 3.7 FlashRamp alternatives: Navan, SAP Concur, Spendesk
Kimi K2Navan, Ramp alternatives: Expensify, Rippling Spend
GLM 4.7 FlashXRamp alternatives: Expensify, Navan, Paylocity, SAP Concur
Neither was named
2 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Mistral SmallSpendesk alternatives: Emburse, Procurify, Ramp
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
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
Level: the same share of first choices.
Rippling Spend0%#– of 7SAP Concur0%#7 of 7Mid-marketThe figures above
Rippling Spend leads by six points.
Rippling Spend9%#4 of 11SAP Concur2%#8 of 11Enterprise
The order flips: SAP Concur leads at enterprise.
SAP Concur66%#1 of 9Rippling Spend3%#– of 9What the models said about Rippling Spend
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“Rippling Spend – Best if you want one platform that ties HR, payroll, and expense reporting together.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Spendesk, Expensify, SAP Concur, or Rippling Spend are often cited as top recommendations” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“the strongest all-around pick right now is often Rippling Spend” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about SAP Concur
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“The most frequently criticized option among users, with consistent themes across G2 and Trustpilot” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Spendesk, Expensify, SAP Concur, or Rippling Spend are often cited as top recommendations” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“SAP Concur and Navan lead for large enterprises” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Ramp vs Rippling SpendRamp vs SAP ConcurZoho Expense vs Rippling SpendZoho Expense vs SAP ConcurSpendesk vs Rippling SpendSpendesk vs SAP ConcurRippling Spend vs BILL Spend & ExpenseRippling Spend vs ExpensifyRippling Spend vs NavanBILL Spend & Expense vs SAP ConcurExpensify vs SAP ConcurNavan vs SAP ConcurAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full expense management 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.