Index › Treasury and cash › Cash flow forecasting › Agicap vs Abacum

Cash flow forecasting · September 2026 Edition

Agicap vs Abacum

One of twelve models named Agicap first on the direct prompt; two named Abacum. Agicap was named by eleven of the twelve models and Abacum by eleven and Agicap carries 24 labels and Abacum 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Agicap

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

Abacum

accepted challenger

Named in five categories this edition.

First-choice share18%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate4%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#1#6A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.

Labels2417A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Agicap reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Cube was named alongside these two in nine of the twelve direct answers. Agicap vs Tesorio · Agicap vs Chaser · Agicap vs Cube

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 flow forecasting page.

By framing

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

AgicapFirst choices, of twelve modelsAbacum

Direct12

Paraphrase70

Comparative00

Budget-constrained00

Scale-constrained10

Negative001 against Agicap · 1 against Abacum

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 Agicap and Abacum 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

Agicap

Abacum

first choice

named as an alternative

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

The direct prompt

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

Agicap first, Abacum not the choice

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

GPT-5.4 miniAgicap alternatives: Cube, Float, Tesorio

Abacum first, Agicap not the choice

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

Perplexity SonarAbacum, Drivetrain alternatives: Chaser, Cube, Vena

DeepSeek V4 FlashAbacum alternatives: Centime, Chaser, Cube, Drivetrain

Neither was the first choice, one was named

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

Gemini 3.5 FlashCentime, Tesorio alternatives: Agicap, Cube, Mosaic, Trovata

Grok 4.1 FastChaser, Drivetrain alternatives: Abacum, Upflow

Mistral SmallCube alternatives: Abacum, Chaser

Llama 4 MaverickCube alternatives: Abacum, Agicap, Chaser, GTreasury

Qwen 3.7 FlashChaser alternatives: Abacum, Phocas Software, Vena

Kimi K2Tesorio alternatives: Agicap, Chaser, Cube, Float

GLM 4.7 FlashXChaser alternatives: Abacum, Drivetrain, Float, Futrli, Upflow

Neither was named

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

Claude Haiku 4.5Tesorio alternatives: Billtrust, Cube, Drivetrain

MiniMax M2.5Chaser alternatives: Cube, Tesorio

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

Agicap leads by two points.

Agicap#5 of 8

Abacum#– of 8

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Agicap leads by fourteen points.

Agicap#1 of 14

Abacum#6 of 14

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

Agicap#– of 10

Abacum#– of 10

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Agicap

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

“Caution level: High — but not a flat "avoid"” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative

“For most mid‑sized B2B companies ... Agicap is the most frequently recommended option in recent reviews.” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice

What the models said about Abacum

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

“Abacum (not for enterprises)” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative

“Best overall for mid-market FP&A and scenario planning: Abacum” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice

“Abacum — Best overall for mid-market FP&A teams” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice

Also compared

Agicap vs Tesorio Agicap vs Chaser Agicap vs Cube Agicap vs Float Agicap vs Cash Flow Frog Agicap vs Kyriba Tesorio vs Abacum Chaser vs Abacum Cube vs Abacum Float vs Abacum Abacum vs Cash Flow Frog Abacum vs Kyriba All twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full cash flow forecasting 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.