Every category where a model named Commenda 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
Entity management	Equity and corporate	16%	3 of 87	6%	16	accepted challenger
Global e-invoicing compliance	Tax and compliance	9%	4 of 108	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Avalara at 28%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct12 labels5

Paraphrase9 labels4

Comparative5 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained6 labels3

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative5 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative39 labels in all, every segment counted; 12 of the 14 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.

“Often cited as a leader for international companies. It combines entity management with AI-driven compliance monitoring and incorporates entities in 70+ countries.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Entity management · comparative prompt · first choice

“The Best All-In-One for Global Expansion: Commenda ... widely considered the strongest option for "Mid-Market" companies” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Global e-invoicing compl · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Sovos and Commenda are especially strong choices if you have international operations or multiple entities” Mistral Small · Global e-invoicing compl · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Commenda is a strong budget-friendly contender that balances functionality with affordability” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Entity management · budget prompt · first choice

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.

“Other tools like Commenda have occasional gripes (complex UI, tax glitches, integrations), but positives outweigh them.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Entity management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Commenda, over the 39 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Commenda was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Athennian23 of 394Compare →

Diligent Entities18 of 392Not in the top three

CSC Entity Management16 of 390Not in the top three

EntityKeeper14 of 395Compare →

CT Corporation Entity Management8 of 390Not in the top three

Filejet7 of 392Not in the top three

Sovos6 of 392Not in the top three

MinuteBox6 of 391Not in the top three

Computershare GEMS6 of 390Not in the top three

TaxJar6 of 390Not 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 Commenda. 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 38 of the 39 answers that named Commenda and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

commenda.ioYour site29

worldmetrics.org26

g2.com24

f6s.com20

getapp.com18

techbullion.com17

capterra.com16

zipdo.co16

coverpin.com14

gitnux.org13

164 of the 193 domain citations in answers naming Commenda came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

worldmetrics.org/best/entity-management-software18

g2.com/categories/entity-management17

techbullion.com/the-6-best-entity-management-tools-in-202617

capterra.com/entity-management-software15

f6s.com/software/category/legal-entity-management14

getapp.com/operations-management-software/entity-management14

worldmetrics.org/best/legal-entity-management-software14

coverpin.com/resources/top-10-entity-management-tools-compared13

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 Commenda'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 Commenda, 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 commenda.io 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.