Every category where a model named AuditBoard 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
Internal controls and SOX	Tax and compliance	18%	1 of 71	9%	33	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AuditBoard 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 AuditBoard 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	1	2	0	0	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	0	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	1	1	1	1	4
Grok 4.1 Fast	2	1	1	0	4
Mistral Small	2	0	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	0	1	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1	0	2
Kimi K2	0	3	0	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	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

Direct22 labels8

Paraphrase13 labels9

Comparative24 labels8not counted in share

Budget-constrained17 labels1

Scale-constrained11 labels4

Negative3 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative90 labels in all, every segment counted; 22 of the 31 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.

“If I had to pick one default recommendation, I'd choose AuditBoard because it is positioned as the top pick for internal controls management” Perplexity Sonar · Internal controls · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“I'd generally recommend AuditBoard if your main need is a strong, scalable internal controls / SOX / risk management platform” GPT-5.4 mini · Internal controls · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Often ranked as the #1 tool for internal controls management, especially for SOX compliance and audit workflows.” Mistral Small · Internal controls · comparative prompt · first choice

“AuditBoard | User-friendly, SOX-specific workflows, integrations | Mid-market, growing companies” Mistral Small · Internal controls · scale 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.

“Workiva, AuditBoard, LogicGate – Overkill, quote-only, and almost always over $40k/year.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Internal controls · budget prompt · hard negative

“steer clear of heavy, traditional enterprise GRC ... like Workiva, AuditBoard, or MetricStream” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Internal controls · budget prompt · soft negative

“AuditBoard and BlackLine appear to start closer to $50K/year or more” Perplexity Sonar · Internal controls · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AuditBoard, over the 89 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AuditBoard was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Workiva61 of 892Not in the top three

MetricStream44 of 892Not in the top three

Vanta34 of 896Not in the top three

Diligent One Platform34 of 891Compare →

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management33 of 890Not in the top three

LogicGate Risk Cloud29 of 893Not in the top three

Drata28 of 895Not in the top three

Archer28 of 890Not in the top three

Hyperproof21 of 892Not in the top three

FloQast18 of 897Compare →

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 AuditBoard. 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 70 of the 89 answers that named AuditBoard and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

optro.ai51

worldmetrics.org47

gitnux.org37

gartner.com32

netwrix.com31

wifitalents.com28

highradius.com26

riskpublishing.com26

sprinto.com26

riskwatch.com23

327 of the 327 domain citations in answers naming AuditBoard came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

netwrix.com/en/resources/blog/sox-compliance-software31

gartner.com/reviews/market/internal-controls-software29

optro.ai/blog/best-internal-control-management-software28

highradius.com/resources/Blog/best-sox-compliance-tools25

optro.ai/blog/best-sox-management-software25

riskpublishing.com/best-sox-compliance-software-compared25

sprinto.com/blog/internal-control-software24

worldmetrics.org/best/internal-control-management-software20

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as AuditBoard

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as AuditBoard; a claim can dispute any of them.

AuditBoard (Optro) 5AuditBoard (now Optro) 2AuditBoard (now Optro in some listings) 1AuditBoard (now part of Optro) 1SOXHUB 1

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 AuditBoard'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 AuditBoard, 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 auditboard.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.