Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › Authorize.net · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Authorize.net

11Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

7 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Authorize.net was named 5 times in B2B payment acceptance, where Helcim led with 17%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business26 of 66

under the label threshold

Mid-market38 of 91

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In b2b payment acceptance · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Authorize.net 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
B2B payment acceptance	Receivables and billing	0%	38 of 91	20%	5	under 10 labels · led by Helcim at 17%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative11 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“monthly fees from $25/mo; gateway may have separate fee | No free plan” GLM 4.7 FlashX · B2B payment acceptance · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Authorize.net, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Authorize.net was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Stripe11 of 114Not in the top three

Helcim10 of 116Not in the top three

BILL9 of 110Not in the top three

Wise Business6 of 110Not in the top three

Melio5 of 110Not in the top three

Stax5 of 110Not in the top three

Adyen4 of 111Not in the top three

Braintree4 of 110Not in the top three

PayPal4 of 110Not in the top three

PaymentCloud4 of 110Not 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 Authorize.net. 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 10 of the 11 answers that named Authorize.net and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com9

techrepublic.com9

factura.ai6

fitsmallbusiness.com6

emergenresearch.com5

helcim.com5

alltopbusiness.com4

connectpay.com4

photonpay.com4

rillion.com4

Fifty-six of the fifty-six domain citations in answers naming Authorize.net came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/b2b-payments-software9

techrepublic.com/article/best-b2b-payment-processors9

factura.ai/b2b-payment-platforms-small-businesses6

fitsmallbusiness.com/best-b2b-payment-solutions6

emergenresearch.com/blog/top-10-companies-by-competitive-position-in-the-global-b2b-paymen5

alltopbusiness.com/best-b2b-payment-software4

connectpay.com/blog/b2b-payment-platforms4

rillion.com/blog/best-b2b-payment-platforms4

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 Authorize.net'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 Authorize.net, 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 authorize.net 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.