Every category where a model named Fairview 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
SaaS metrics and analytics	Planning and analysis	2%	9 of 81	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by ChartMogul at 45%
Financial reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	2%	13 of 133	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 27%
Board and investor reporting	Planning and analysis	0%	33 of 97	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by OnBoard at 25%
FP&A platforms	Planning and analysis	0%	31 of 52	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Vena at 15%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	1	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	2	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
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

Direct13 labels3

Paraphrase8 labels1

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained5 labels1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative27 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 5 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.

“the best single dashboard choice is usually Fairview if you want a prebuilt KPI dashboard focused on revenue and pipeline” Perplexity Sonar · SaaS metrics · direct prompt · first choice

“If you're a B2B company where finance needs to analyze revenue by sales segment... go with Fairview” Kimi K2 · Financial reporting · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Fairview — ~$349/month ... Ideal if your board meetings are driven by live financials.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Board · direct prompt · alternative

“Lowest entry pricing in the results; good for basic budgeting/cash flow needs.” Perplexity Sonar · FP&A platforms · 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 Fairview, over the 27 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Fairview was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Fathom7 of 274Not in the top three

Nasdaq Boardvantage6 of 274Not in the top three

Databox6 of 272Not in the top three

Microsoft Power BI6 of 270Not in the top three

Visible4 of 273Not in the top three

ChartMogul4 of 272Not in the top three

Jirav4 of 271Not in the top three

Baremetrics4 of 270Not in the top three

Cube4 of 270Not in the top three

Sage Intacct3 of 272Not 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 Fairview. 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 27 of the 27 answers that named Fairview and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

getfairview.com27

worldmetrics.org13

g2.com12

appdeck.com7

board-room.org7

getaleph.com7

zipdo.co7

coefficient.io6

cubesoftware.com6

databox.com6

Ninety-eight of the ninety-eight domain citations in answers naming Fairview came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

appdeck.com/blog/board-reporting-software-comparison7

getfairview.com/best/board-reporting-software7

getfairview.com/best/kpi-dashboard-for-saas7

designrevision.com/blog/saas-reporting-tools6

getaleph.com/answers/board-investor-reporting-software6

board-room.org/blog/board-reporting-software5

coefficient.io/saas-metrics-dashboard-5-best-examples5

data-mania.com/blog/b2b-saas-dashboard5

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 Fairview'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 Fairview, 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 fairview.io 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.