Every category where a model named Chargebee RevRec 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
Revenue recognition	Accounting and close	0%	21 of 77	7%	15	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

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

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase9 labels2

Comparative11 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative38 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 3 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.

“For subscription-heavy businesses needing high-volume automation: Zuora Revenue, Chargebee RevRec.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Revenue recognition · comparative prompt · alternative

“~$599/month (for up to $100k billings) | SaaS with more complex billing and monetization models” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Revenue recognition · budget prompt · alternative

“Excellent usage-based recognition, SSP determination, and contract modification handling” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Revenue recognition · comparative prompt · alternative

“More affordable entry point with end-to-end automation of ASC 606's five-step model” Kimi K2 · Revenue recognition · paraphrase 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.

“is solid, but it is not especially budget-friendly” GPT-5.4 mini · Revenue recognition · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Chargebee RevRec, over the 38 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Chargebee RevRec was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Maxio29 of 386Not in the top three

RightRev17 of 385Not in the top three

NetSuite Advanced Revenue Management17 of 380Not in the top three

QuickBooks Online16 of 382Not in the top three

Zuora Revenue14 of 383Not in the top three

Sage Intacct13 of 382Not in the top three

LedgerUp12 of 381Not in the top three

SAP Revenue Accounting and Reporting9 of 380Not in the top three

Stripe Revenue Recognition8 of 383Not in the top three

Workday Financial Management8 of 380Not 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 Chargebee RevRec. 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 33 of the 38 answers that named Chargebee RevRec and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ledgerup.ai22

worldmetrics.org17

dualentry.com16

hubifi.com16

rightrev.com14

zenskar.com14

chargebee.comYour site13

erpresearch.com13

younium.com13

eleven.run12

137 of the 150 domain citations in answers naming Chargebee RevRec came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

ledgerup.ai/resources/7-best-revenue-recognition-software-for-saas-202621

dualentry.com/blog/best-revenue-recognition-software16

eleven.run/blog/best-revenue-recognition-software12

ledgerup.ai/resources/best-asc-606-revenue-recognition-software-202612

zenskar.com/buyers-guide/revenue-recognition-software12

capterra.com/revenue-recognition-software11

pipedrive.com/en/blog/best-revenue-recognition-software11

rightrev.com/top-revenue-recognition-software-2026-a-comprehensive-buyers-guide11

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Chargebee RevRec

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

LedgerUp / Maxio / Chargebee RevRec 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 Chargebee RevRec'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 Chargebee RevRec, 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 chargebee.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.