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

Fyle

8Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
7 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
3 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Fyle was named 3 times in Expense management, where Ramp led with 34%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business16 of 37
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Mid-market18 of 46
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise11 of 41
0%4 labels
under the label threshold
In expense management · 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 Fyle 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
Expense managementSpend and procurement0%18 of 460%3under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 34%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Fyle 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 Fyle across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00101
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00000
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash01001
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
Direct1 labelNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative4 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained2 labelsNone
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative8 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

“Best for: SMB and mid-market with policy-aware needs” Kimi K2 · Expense management · comparative prompt · alternative
“Fyle (Best for Enterprise Tech on a Budget)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Expense management · 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 Fyle, over the 8 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Fyle was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
SAP Concur8 of 82Not in the top three
Ramp7 of 82Not in the top three
Expensify6 of 81Not in the top three
Zoho Expense6 of 81Not in the top three
BILL Spend & Expense5 of 80Not in the top three
Coupa Expense Management5 of 80Not in the top three
Brex4 of 81Not in the top three
Navan3 of 80Not in the top three
Rippling Spend3 of 80Not in the top three
Rydoo3 of 80Not 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 Fyle. 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 6 of the 8 answers that named Fyle and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com5
ofx.com5
airwallex.com4
bill.com3
itilite.com3
learn.g2.com3
navan.com3
ramp.com3
spendesk.com3
worldmetrics.org3

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

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/expense-management-software5
ofx.com/en-us/blog/best-expense-management-software-solutions5
airwallex.com/en-us/blog/best-expense-management-software4
bill.com/blog/best-expense-management-software3
itilite.com/blog/top-10-best-expense-management-software3
learn.g2.com/best-expense-management-software3
spendesk.com/blog/best-expense-management-software3
worldmetrics.org/best/expense-management-software3

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 Fyle'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 Fyle, 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 fylehq.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.

Subscribe to the pack