Every category where a model named ChatGPT 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
AI accounting assistants	Accounting and close	0%	79 of 79	92%	12	criticized challenger
Board and investor reporting	Planning and analysis	0%	91 of 97	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by OnBoard at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ChatGPT 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 ChatGPT 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	2	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	2	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	2
Kimi K2	0	1	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative29 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative35 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.

“You should never use public-facing consumer AI models (such as standard free tiers of ChatGPT, Bard, or generic LLM interfaces) to process your actual client ledgers” Qwen 3.7 Flash · AI accounting assistants · negative prompt · hard negative

“Consumer-grade chatbots used with client data, such as free/public versions of ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, because some may use inputs for training” Perplexity Sonar · AI accounting assistants · negative prompt · hard negative

“Uploading proprietary financial statements... into public, consumer-grade AI models (like the free tiers of ChatGPT...) can compromise corporate data” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Board · negative prompt · hard negative

“Public, Consumer-Grade AI Chatbots (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) for Active Bookkeeping or Tax Advice ... should never be used to run your books” Gemini 3.5 Flash · AI accounting assistants · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ChatGPT, over the 35 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ChatGPT was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Claude27 of 350Not in the top three

QuickBooks Online15 of 355Not in the top three

Xero14 of 354Not in the top three

Gemini14 of 350Not in the top three

Vic.ai10 of 351Not in the top three

Digits9 of 350Not in the top three

Numeric8 of 351Not in the top three

Botkeeper7 of 350Not in the top three

FloQast7 of 350Not in the top three

FreshBooks6 of 351Not 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 ChatGPT. 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 29 of the 35 answers that named ChatGPT and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

forbes.com16

linkedin.com12

articsledge.com11

becker.com11

reddit.com11

numeric.io10

creativeplanning.com8

intuit.com8

usecarly.com8

dext.com7

102 of the 102 domain citations in answers naming ChatGPT came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2026/09/17/ai-in-accounting-how-to-work-smart-while-14

becker.com/blog/cpe/risks-of-ai-in-accounting-what-every-accounting-professional-needs-to-11

creativeplanning.com/insights/consulting/ai-accounting-risks-small-business-20268

intuit.com/blog/innovative-thinking/best-ai-accounting-software-tools8

numeric.io/blog/ai-accounting-tools8

usecarly.com/blog/ai-accounting-software8

fathomhq.com/blog/best-ai-accounting-tools-what-to-use-and-why7

lionscripts.com/blog/how-to-vet-ai-accounting-software6

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 ChatGPT'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 ChatGPT, 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 chatgpt.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.