Finance AI Index
Index Vendors › Bookeeping.ai · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

Bookeeping.ai

10Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative 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
7 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Bookeeping.ai was named 7 times in AI accounting assistants, where Sage Intacct led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In ai accounting assistants · 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 Bookeeping.ai 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
AI accounting assistantsAccounting and close0%19 of 790%7under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Bookeeping.ai 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 Bookeeping.ai across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.501001
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash01001
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small01001
DeepSeek V4 Flash01001
Llama 4 Maverick01001
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K201001
GLM 4.7 FlashX00000
MiniMax M2.500101

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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained10 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative10 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.

“Zoho Books paid tier or Bookeeping.ai give you the most automation for the money.” Kimi K2 · AI accounting assistants · budget prompt · alternative
“For freelancers and micro-businesses, Bookeeping.ai is simple and starts at $29/month” Claude Haiku 4.5 · AI accounting assistants · budget prompt · alternative
“FreshBooks and Bookeeping.ai offer good value at $23–$35/month” Mistral Small · AI accounting assistants · budget prompt · alternative
“Best for Conversational AI & Solopreneurs” Gemini 3.5 Flash · AI accounting assistants · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Bookeeping.ai, over the 10 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Bookeeping.ai was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Zoho Books10 of 105Not in the top three
QuickBooks Online10 of 100Not in the top three
FreshBooks9 of 101Not in the top three
Xero7 of 102Not in the top three
Wave5 of 102Not in the top three
Kick3 of 101Not in the top three
Puzzle3 of 100Not in the top three
Digits2 of 101Not in the top three
Bench2 of 100Not in the top three
Zeni2 of 100Not 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 Bookeeping.ai. 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 9 of the 10 answers that named Bookeeping.ai and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gotofu.com9
startupowl.com9
intuit.com6
dualentry.com5
jupid.com5
weareocta.com4
aistackguides.com2
bestaiaccounting.com2
cashflowy.ai2
fitsmallbusiness.com2

Forty-six of the forty-six domain citations in answers naming Bookeeping.ai came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

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 Bookeeping.ai'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 Bookeeping.ai, 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 booke.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.

Subscribe to the pack