Every category where a model named Epicor 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
ERP systems	Accounting and close	0%	63 of 70	42%	12	criticized challenger
Corporate performance management	Planning and analysis	0%	57 of 95	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Planful at 29%

Movement

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

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

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative16 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.

“often a strong fit for manufacturing, distribution, and supply-chain-heavy businesses” GPT-5.4 mini · ERP systems · direct 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.

“Older versions of Syteline and Epicor - these are also outdated ERP systems that may no longer be supported.” Llama 4 Maverick · ERP systems · negative prompt · hard negative

“older versions of Syteline and Epicor are highlighted as legacy systems” Mistral Small · ERP systems · negative prompt · hard negative

“Mixed reviews. Some users report poor support (offshored call centers), extensive customization being required, and steep learning curves.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ERP systems · negative prompt · soft negative

“outdated versions of Infor, Epicor, and Microsoft Dynamics (like older NAV/AX versions)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ERP systems · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Epicor, over the 16 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Epicor was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Oracle NetSuite11 of 162Not in the top three

Acumatica9 of 160Not in the top three

Infor8 of 160Not in the top three

SAP S/4HANA8 of 160Not in the top three

Odoo7 of 162Not in the top three

Microsoft Dynamics 3657 of 160Not in the top three

SAP ECC5 of 160Not in the top three

Sage Intacct5 of 160Not in the top three

Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central4 of 161Not in the top three

Oracle Fusion Cloud ERP4 of 160Not 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 Epicor. 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 11 of the 16 answers that named Epicor and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

erpresearch.com7

elevatiq.com5

cio.com4

clefincode.com4

reddit.com4

forbes.com3

panorama-consulting.com3

techtarget.com3

topdynamicspartners.com3

bigideasdb.com2

Thirty-eight of the thirty-eight domain citations in answers naming Epicor came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

clefincode.com/blog/global-digital-vibes/en/comparative-analysis-of-leading-erp-systems-204

cio.com/article/278677/enterprise-resource-planning-10-famous-erp-disasters-dustups-and-di3

elevatiq.com/post/sticking-with-an-outdated-erp-may-be-riskier-than-you-think3

erpresearch.com/en-us/erp-implementation-failure-case-studies3

panorama-consulting.com/top-10-erp-failures3

bigideasdb.com/most-hated-software-20262

cio.com/article/284312/10-common-erp-mistakes-to-avoid.html2

elevatiq.com/post/mid-sized-business-erp2

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 Epicor'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 Epicor, 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 epicor.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.