| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense management | Spend and procurement | 4% | 6 of 46 | 16% | 50 | accepted challenger |
| Spend management platforms | Spend and procurement | 0% | 13 of 39 | 23% | 13 | accepted challenger |
| Corporate cards | Spend and procurement | 0% | 44 of 63 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 69% |
| Business bill pay | Treasury and cash | 0% | 18 of 69 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by BILL at 35% |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“I'd recommend starting with Expensify if you want the most established and widely-used tool” MiniMax M2.5 · Expense management · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Spendesk, Expensify, SAP Concur, or Rippling Spend are often cited as top recommendations” Mistral Small · Expense management · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Best if you value a simple, mobile‑first employee experience and want strong receipt automation at an affordable price.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Expense management · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“well suited to cost-conscious small businesses, but typically costs more per user than Zoho\u2019s budget plans” Perplexity Sonar · Expense management · budget prompt · alternative
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.
“Verdict: Avoid if you want to keep your existing bank cards, or if you expect hands-on, human customer support.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Spend management platfor · negative prompt · hard negative
“A mixed picture — it rates well overall (4.5/5 on G2), but has had a notable drop in sentiment since the "New Expensify" redesign” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Expense management · negative prompt · soft negative
“Expensify has recently faced criticism for a radical political email sent to users, which many viewed as a privacy violation” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Expense management · negative prompt · soft negative
“Expensify is a very common tool, but it has faced scrutiny regarding pricing changes, data privacy, and financial stability.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Expense management · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 179 of the 213 answers that named Expensify and are not a share of its labels.
664 of the 664 domain citations in answers naming Expensify came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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 Expensify'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 Expensify, 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 expensify.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.