Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › BoardPAC · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

BoardPAC

8Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

8 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

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. BoardPAC was named 4 times in Board, where OnBoard led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market34 of 97

under the label threshold

Enterprise24 of 111

under the label threshold

In board · 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 BoardPAC 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	0%	34 of 97	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by OnBoard at 25%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	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	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0
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

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative8 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.

“Tools like Boardable or BoardPAC score well for value if avoiding the above pitfalls.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Board · negative 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as BoardPAC, over the 8 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BoardPAC was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Diligent Boards7 of 81Not in the top three

Nasdaq Boardvantage6 of 82Not in the top three

OnBoard6 of 80Not in the top three

AppDeck Board Portal4 of 81Not in the top three

Boardable4 of 81Not in the top three

Azeus Convene4 of 80Not in the top three

Planful4 of 80Not in the top three

Board Intelligence3 of 80Not in the top three

BoardPro3 of 80Not in the top three

Govenda3 of 80Not 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 BoardPAC. 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 8 of the 8 answers that named BoardPAC and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appdeck.com8

worldmetrics.org8

clearpointstrategy.com6

boardintelligence.com4

gitnux.org4

board-room.org3

getaleph.com3

nasdaq.com3

rfp.wiki3

wifitalents.com3

Forty-five of the forty-five domain citations in answers naming BoardPAC came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

worldmetrics.org/best/board-report-software7

appdeck.com/blog/board-reporting-software-comparison6

clearpointstrategy.com/blog/board-reporting-software6

worldmetrics.org/best/board-reporting-software6

appdeck.com/blog/board-portal-software-comparison-20263

board-room.org/blog/board-reporting-software3

getaleph.com/answers/board-investor-reporting-software3

gitnux.org/best/board-reporting-software3

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 BoardPAC'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 BoardPAC, 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 board.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.