Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › Infor EAM · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Infor EAM

13Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

8 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

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Infor EAM was named 4 times in Fixed asset accounting, where Sage Fixed Assets led with 29%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business53 of 80

under the label threshold

Mid-market32 of 94

under the label threshold

Enterprise21 of 90

under the label threshold

In fixed asset accounting · 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 Infor EAM 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
Fixed asset accounting	Accounting and close	0%	32 of 94	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Sage Fixed Assets at 29%

Movement

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

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

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

Comparative11 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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 Infor EAM, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Infor EAM was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

IBM Maximo13 of 130Not in the top three

Sage Fixed Assets11 of 133Not in the top three

Asset Panda10 of 131Not in the top three

NetSuite Fixed Assets Management8 of 130Not in the top three

UpKeep8 of 130Not in the top three

Oracle Fusion Cloud Fixed Assets6 of 134Not in the top three

EZOfficeInventory5 of 131Not in the top three

SAP Asset Accounting4 of 130Not in the top three

Ivanti3 of 130Not in the top three

ManageEngine AssetExplorer3 of 130Not 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 Infor EAM. 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 12 of the 13 answers that named Infor EAM and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

worldmetrics.org10

guideflow.com7

assetcues.com5

bassets.net5

gartner.com5

assetpanda.com4

financesonline.com4

gitnux.org4

numeric.io4

softwareadvice.com4

Fifty-two of the fifty-two domain citations in answers naming Infor EAM came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

worldmetrics.org/best/fixed-assets-management-software9

guideflow.com/blog/fixed-asset-management-software7

worldmetrics.org/best/fixed-asset-management-software7

gartner.com/reviews/market/enterprise-asset-management-software5

bassets.net/blog/top-7-fixed-asset-accounting-software-compared4

financesonline.com/fixed-asset-management4

numeric.io/blog/fixed-asset-management-software4

softwaretestinghelp.com/fixed-asset-software4

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 Infor EAM'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 Infor EAM, 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 infor.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.