Every category where a model named Aleph 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
Board and investor reporting	Planning and analysis	2%	9 of 97	0%	9	under 10 labels · led by OnBoard at 25%
FP&A platforms	Planning and analysis	2%	9 of 52	0%	18	accepted challenger
Financial reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	2%	15 of 133	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 27%
Financial modeling and scenario planning	Planning and analysis	0%	25 of 114	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Datarails at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Aleph 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 Aleph across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	1	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	3	4
Mistral Small	0	1	2	3
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	2	4
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	0	2
Kimi K2	0	4	2	6
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	1	1	3

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

Direct16 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labels3

Comparative15 labels3not counted in share

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained12 labels1

Negative6 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative57 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 8 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.

“Aleph is often the top pick for teams that want to stay spreadsheet-friendly while gaining AI-driven insights” GLM 4.7 FlashX · FP&A platforms · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“fast implementation time (days to 1-2 weeks) and is suitable for teams that want to keep Excel models” Llama 4 Maverick · FP&A platforms · negative prompt · first choice

“or Aleph if your priority is streamlining board reporting with automated narrative generation” MiniMax M2.5 · Board · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“pick Aleph if you want a highly customizable reporting canvas” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Financial reporting · paraphrase prompt · first choice

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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Aleph, over the 57 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Aleph was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cube37 of 574Not in the top three

Datarails28 of 574Not in the top three

Pigment24 of 576Not in the top three

Planful23 of 571Not in the top three

Workday Adaptive Planning23 of 570Not in the top three

Anaplan22 of 571Not in the top three

Vena18 of 572Not in the top three

Jirav15 of 571Not in the top three

Centage12 of 571Not in the top three

Clockwork11 of 577Not 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 Aleph. 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 52 of the 57 answers that named Aleph and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

getaleph.com52

drivetrain.ai21

centage.com20

cfoshortlist.com19

cubesoftware.com16

worldmetrics.org14

financecopilothq.com13

learn.g2.com13

appdeck.com12

board.com12

192 of the 192 domain citations in answers naming Aleph came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

getaleph.com/answers/best-fpa-software-by-company-size22

drivetrain.ai/solutions/financial-planning-analysis-software20

getaleph.com/answers/top-fpa-software-202620

centage.com/blog/best-fp-a-software19

getaleph.com/answers/board-investor-reporting-software17

cfoshortlist.com/reports/best-fpa-software-202613

financecopilothq.com/best-fpa-software13

appdeck.com/blog/board-reporting-software-comparison12

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 Aleph'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 Aleph, 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 aleph.com 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.