Every category where a model named Cube 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
Financial modeling and scenario planning	Planning and analysis	11%	3 of 114	0%	18	accepted challenger
FP&A platforms	Planning and analysis	8%	6 of 52	8%	37	accepted challenger
Corporate performance management	Planning and analysis	5%	6 of 95	0%	14	accepted challenger
Cash flow forecasting	Treasury and cash	4%	6 of 86	0%	24	accepted challenger
Financial reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	2%	9 of 133	0%	12	accepted challenger
Board and investor reporting	Planning and analysis	0%	23 of 97	0%	11	accepted challenger
Financial consolidation	Accounting and close	0%	17 of 96	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Prophix at 19%
Financial close management	Accounting and close	0%	40 of 68	40%	5	under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 60%
Corporate tax provision	Tax and compliance	0%	75 of 98	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Thomson Reuters ONESOURCE Tax Provision at 26%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Cube 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 Cube 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	0	2	5	0	7
GPT-5.4 mini	0	3	0	0	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	13	5	2	22
Perplexity Sonar	0	4	2	0	6
Grok 4.1 Fast	3	5	3	2	13
Mistral Small	1	5	6	0	12
DeepSeek V4 Flash	3	9	6	0	18
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	4	0	6
Qwen 3.7 Flash	4	1	0	0	5
Kimi K2	1	8	3	1	13
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	10	1	0	12
MiniMax M2.5	2	5	5	0	12

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

Direct70 labels12

Paraphrase36 labels11

Comparative63 labels13not counted in share

Budget-constrained50 labels9

Scale-constrained52 labels4

Negative40 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative311 labels in all, every segment counted; 36 of the 51 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.

“Cube: This is currently one of the fastest-growing tools in this space.... | Loves Excel and hates change | Cube |” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Financial modeling · direct prompt · first choice

“Go with Cube (if you want to keep Excel) or Pigment (if you want a modern, web-native planning tool)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Financial reporting · direct prompt · first choice

“For a general mid-sized B2B company, Cube gives the best cost/value balance and adoption ease.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Financial modeling · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“If your team relies on spreadsheets but wants to improve forecasting, Cube is a top choice.” Mistral Small · Cash flow forecasting · direct 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.

“Avoid If: Your primary bottleneck is transaction matching, ledger-to-subledger reconciliations, and strict accounting workflows” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Financial close manageme · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid pricier ones like Jirav (~$10K/year), Cube/Datarails ($1K+/month)” Grok 4.1 Fast · FP&A platforms · budget prompt · hard negative

“you quickly hit "guardrails"... still prone to broken formulas, version-control friction, and performance lag” Gemini 3.5 Flash · FP&A platforms · negative prompt · soft negative

“Most dedicated financial close software (e.g., FloQast, BlackLine, Cube, Prophix) uses custom pricing” Grok 4.1 Fast · Financial close manageme · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Cube, over the 311 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cube was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datarails149 of 31118Compare →

Vena139 of 31112Not in the top three

Anaplan138 of 31110Not in the top three

Workday Adaptive Planning130 of 3110Not in the top three

Planful108 of 3117Not in the top three

Pigment87 of 3119Not in the top three

Jirav86 of 3117Not in the top three

Fathom73 of 31120Not in the top three

OneStream62 of 3111Not in the top three

Mosaic55 of 3115Not 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 Cube. 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 254 of the 311 answers that named Cube and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cubesoftware.com158

drivetrain.ai117

getaleph.com92

golimelight.com88

cfoshortlist.com65

learn.g2.com63

datarails.com62

g2.com62

worldmetrics.org62

clockwork.ai49

818 of the 818 domain citations in answers naming Cube came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

drivetrain.ai/solutions/financial-planning-analysis-software57

clockwork.ai/blog/best-fpa-software-small-business47

golimelight.com/blog/fpa-software-for-small-business47

cubesoftware.com/blog/best-fpa-software-tools42

getaleph.com/answers/top-fpa-software-202642

centage.com/blog/best-fp-a-software40

financecopilothq.com/best-fpa-software39

learn.g2.com/best-fpa-software39

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Cube

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

Cube Software 12

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 Cube'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 Cube, 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 cubeapm.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.