Finance AI Index
Index Vendors › Envelop · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

Envelop

4Judge labels
3First choices
0Negative labels
3 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
2 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Envelop was named 2 times in Internal controls, where AuditBoard led with 18%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In internal controls · 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 Envelop 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
Internal controls and SOXTax and compliance2%15 of 710%2under 10 labels · led by AuditBoard at 18%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Envelop 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 Envelop across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.510001
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00000
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K201001
GLM 4.7 FlashX00000
MiniMax M2.500000

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-constrained4 labels3
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 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.

“you can use the free, open-source community version, available under the MIT License... This is an excellent starting point for cost-conscious organizations.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Internal controls · budget prompt · first choice
“Consider Envelop's open-source version if you have technical staff” Kimi K2 · Internal controls · 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 Envelop, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Envelop was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Workiva3 of 40Not in the top three
Mitti2 of 41Not in the top three
Arvexi1 of 40Not in the top three
Drata1 of 40Not in the top three
Hyperproof1 of 40Not in the top three
LogicGate Risk Cloud1 of 40Not in the top three
Lumiform1 of 40Not in the top three
ManageEngine EventLog Analyzer1 of 40Not in the top three
ManageEngine Log3601 of 40Not in the top three
Optro1 of 40Not 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 Envelop. 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 4 of the 4 answers that named Envelop and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

mitti.com4
netwrix.com4
pathlock.com4
itprc.com3
sourceforge.net3
checkthat.ai2
flosum.com2
highradius.com2
riskwatch.com2
scytale.ai2

Twenty-eight of the twenty-eight domain citations in answers naming Envelop came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Envelop

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Envelop; a claim can dispute any of them.
Envelop (Open Source) 1Envelop (Open-Source Community Version) 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 Envelop'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 Envelop, 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 envelop.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.