Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › CorpNet · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

CorpNet

3Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

2 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CorpNet was named 1 time in Entity management, where Athennian led with 18%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business30 of 73

under the label threshold

Mid-market36 of 87

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In entity management · 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 CorpNet 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	0%	36 of 87	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Athennian at 18%

Movement

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

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

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 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.

“a startup-focused platform like ZenBusiness/CorpNet” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Entity management · 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 CorpNet, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CorpNet was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

LegalX2 of 32Not in the top three

Otonomos1 of 31Not in the top three

Airtable1 of 30Not in the top three

Clio Manage Lite1 of 30Not in the top three

Diligent Boards1 of 30Not in the top three

Diligent Entities1 of 30Not in the top three

FounderShield1 of 30Not in the top three

Google Sheets/Excel Templates1 of 30Not in the top three

Lawmatics1 of 30Not in the top three

Rocket Lawyer1 of 30Not 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 CorpNet. 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 2 of the 3 answers that named CorpNet and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

capterra.com2

thelegalpractice.com2

worldmetrics.org2

blog.9cv9.com1

f6s.com1

sourceforge.net1

Nine of the nine domain citations in answers naming CorpNet came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

capterra.com/entity-management-software2

thelegalpractice.com/tools/best-legal-entity-management-software2

worldmetrics.org/best/entity-management-software2

blog.9cv9.com/top-10-entity-management-software-to-use-in-20261

f6s.com/software/category/legal-entity-management1

sourceforge.net/software/entity-management/for-small-business1

worldmetrics.org/best/legal-entity-management-software1

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 CorpNet'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 CorpNet, 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 corpnet.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.