Every category where a model named Fathom 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 reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	12%	2 of 133	24%	17	accepted challenger
FP&A platforms	Planning and analysis	10%	5 of 52	0%	10	accepted challenger
Financial consolidation	Accounting and close	2%	7 of 96	0%	13	accepted challenger
Financial modeling and scenario planning	Planning and analysis	2%	12 of 114	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Datarails at 19%
Cash flow forecasting	Treasury and cash	2%	18 of 86	20%	10	accepted challenger
AI accounting assistants	Accounting and close	0%	21 of 79	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 25%
Board and investor reporting	Planning and analysis	0%	35 of 97	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by OnBoard at 25%
Corporate performance management	Planning and analysis	0%	39 of 95	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Planful at 29%
SaaS metrics and analytics	Planning and analysis	0%	79 of 81	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by ChartMogul at 45%

Movement

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

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

Direct39 labels7

Paraphrase48 labels17

Comparative36 labels4not counted in share

Budget-constrained58 labels14

Scale-constrained24 labels2

Negative19 labels5not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative224 labels in all, every segment counted; 40 of the 49 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.

“For most mid-sized B2B companies, Fathom delivers the best balance of speed, accounting integration, and value.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Financial reporting · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Fathom (cheapest) or Clockwork (best overall for forecasting + AI) are your strongest picks” DeepSeek V4 Flash · FP&A platforms · budget prompt · first choice

“Fathom – Best Value for Money ... Fathom is the most cost-effective professional solution” Kimi K2 · FP&A platforms · budget prompt · first choice

“For slightly more investment but better features, Fathom or Brixx would be better choices” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Cash flow forecasting · budget 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.

“Don't use Plausible/Fathom for in-app user behavior.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · SaaS metrics · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid pricier tools like Fathom ($53/mo) unless needed.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Financial reporting · budget prompt · hard negative

“Avoid this if you already have a senior financial controller who needs complex driver-based modeling; this is more of a "reporting" tool” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Financial reporting · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“dedicated FP&A/reporting tools like Fathom or specialized platforms (which are pricier, typically $50+/mo and aimed at mid-market)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Financial reporting · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Fathom, over the 224 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Fathom was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cube73 of 22410Not in the top three

Jirav72 of 2244Not in the top three

LiveFlow62 of 2247Not in the top three

Clockwork58 of 22426Not in the top three

Datarails54 of 2246Not in the top three

Anaplan47 of 2240Not in the top three

Float44 of 22419Not in the top three

Vena39 of 2242Compare →

Workday Adaptive Planning39 of 2241Not in the top three

Planful34 of 2241Not 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 Fathom. 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 179 of the 224 answers that named Fathom and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

fathomhq.com93

cubesoftware.com79

drivetrain.ai59

worldmetrics.org50

golimelight.com49

g2.com47

clockwork.ai44

highradius.com43

datarails.com36

getaleph.com34

534 of the 534 domain citations in answers naming Fathom came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

clockwork.ai/blog/best-fpa-software-small-business43

golimelight.com/blog/fpa-software-for-small-business38

fathomhq.com/blog/the-6-best-financial-consolidation-software-solutions-in-202433

drivetrain.ai/solutions/financial-planning-analysis-software25

fathomhq.com/blog/the-6-best-financial-modelling-software-tools23

prophix.com/blog/the-12-best-financial-consolidation-software-tools-for-fp-a-teams23

highradius.com/resources/Blog/best-financial-consolidation-vendors22

softwareconnect.com/roundups/best-financial-consolidation-software21

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Fathom

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

Fathom Pro 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 Fathom'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 Fathom, 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 fathom.video 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.