Every category where a model named Abacum for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Cash flow forecasting	Treasury and cash	4%	8 of 86	6%	17	accepted challenger
FP&A platforms	Planning and analysis	2%	14 of 52	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by Vena at 15%
Financial modeling and scenario planning	Planning and analysis	0%	21 of 114	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Datarails at 19%
Corporate performance management	Planning and analysis	0%	28 of 95	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Planful at 29%
Financial reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	0%	63 of 133	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 27%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Abacum yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Abacum across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1	2	0	4
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	2	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	1	1	4
Mistral Small	0	2	1	0	3
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	2	0	5
Llama 4 Maverick	0	2	2	0	4
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	2	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	0	2

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct15 labels2

Paraphrase3 labels1

Comparative15 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained7 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative48 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 3 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“1. Abacum ... designed for mid-sized and growing organizations that require integrated, flexible planning tools” Claude Haiku 4.5 · FP&A platforms · paraphrase prompt · first choice

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

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

“Abacum is designed for mid-market startups and scale-ups that need self-service and workflow automation, starting at $15K pilot pricing” Claude Haiku 4.5 · FP&A platforms · budget prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

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

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Abacum, over the 48 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Abacum was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cube34 of 489Not in the top three

Vena23 of 481Not in the top three

Workday Adaptive Planning22 of 481Not in the top three

Anaplan22 of 480Not in the top three

Datarails21 of 484Not in the top three

Planful16 of 481Not in the top three

Pigment14 of 480Not in the top three

Drivetrain12 of 482Not in the top three

Prophix12 of 480Not in the top three

Float11 of 482Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Abacum. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 45 of the 48 answers that named Abacum and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cubesoftware.com28

drivetrain.ai20

getaleph.com16

abacum.aiYour site13

golimelight.com13

guideflow.com13

tesorio.com12

centage.com11

datarails.com10

upflow.io10

133 of the 146 domain citations in answers naming Abacum came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cubesoftware.com/blog/best-cash-forecasting-software17

tesorio.com/blog/best-cash-flow-forecasting-software-in-2026-reviewed-and-compared12

centage.com/blog/best-fp-a-software11

guideflow.com/blog/cash-flow-forecasting-software11

getaleph.com/answers/top-fpa-software-202610

chaserhq.com/blog/best-cash-flow-forecasting-software9

drivetrain.ai/solutions/cash-flow-forecasting-software9

upflow.io/software/best-cash-flow-forecasting9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Abacum's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Abacum, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at abacum.ai is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.