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

Cash flow forecasting · September 2026 Edition

Agicap vs Cube

One of twelve models named Agicap first on the direct prompt; two named Cube. Agicap was named by eleven of the twelve models and Cube by twelve and both carry 24 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.

Agicap

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

Cube

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

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

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

Rank in category#1#4A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.

Labels2424Equal, which is what makes the shares comparable.

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.Chaser was named alongside these two in nine of the twelve direct answers. Agicap vs Tesorio · Agicap vs Chaser · Agicap vs Float

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 modelsCube

Direct12

Paraphrase70

Comparative02

Budget-constrained00

Scale-constrained10

Negative001 against Agicap

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 Cube 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

Cube

first choice

named as an alternative

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

The direct prompt

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

Agicap first, Cube an alternative

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

GPT-5.4 miniAgicap alternatives: Cube, Float, Tesorio

Cube first, Agicap an alternative

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

Mistral SmallCube alternatives: Abacum, Chaser

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

Neither was the first choice, one was named

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

Claude Haiku 4.5Tesorio alternatives: Billtrust, Cube, Drivetrain

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

Perplexity SonarAbacum, Drivetrain alternatives: Chaser, Cube, Vena

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

Kimi K2Tesorio alternatives: Agicap, Chaser, Cube, Float

MiniMax M2.5Chaser alternatives: Cube, Tesorio

Neither was named

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

Grok 4.1 FastChaser, Drivetrain alternatives: Abacum, Upflow

Qwen 3.7 FlashChaser alternatives: Abacum, Phocas Software, Vena

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

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

Cube#– of 8

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Agicap leads by fourteen points.

Agicap#1 of 14

Cube#4 of 14

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

The order flips: Cube leads at enterprise.

Cube#7 of 10

Agicap#– 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 Cube

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

“If your team relies on spreadsheets but wants to improve forecasting, Cube is a top choice.” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice

Also compared

Agicap vs Tesorio Agicap vs Chaser Agicap vs Float Agicap vs Abacum Agicap vs Cash Flow Frog Agicap vs Kyriba Tesorio vs Cube Chaser vs Cube Cube vs Float Cube vs Abacum Cube vs Cash Flow Frog Cube 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.