Finance AI Index
Index Vendors › Informatica Data Quality · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

Informatica Data Quality

1Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
1 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
1 label, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Informatica Data Quality was named 1 time in Account reconciliation, where FloQast led with 33%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In account reconciliation · 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 Informatica Data Quality 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
Account reconciliationAccounting and close0%33 of 720%1under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 33%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Informatica Data Quality 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 Informatica Data Quality 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 Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash01001
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K200000
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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1 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.

“Enterprise data governance & stewardship → Informatica, IBM QualityStage, Oracle EDQ” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Account reconciliation · comparative 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 Informatica Data Quality, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Informatica Data Quality was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
BlackLine1 of 11Not in the top three
Trintech1 of 11Not in the top three
FloQast1 of 10Not in the top three
Great Expectations1 of 10Not in the top three
Hevo Data1 of 10Not in the top three
HighRadius1 of 10Not in the top three
IBM InfoSphere QualityStage1 of 10Not in the top three
Numeric1 of 10Not in the top three
OneStream1 of 10Not in the top three
Oracle Enterprise Data Quality1 of 10Not 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 Informatica Data Quality. 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 1 of the 1 answers that named Informatica Data Quality and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

airwallex.com1
bluecopa.com1
gartner.com1
gitnux.org1
hevodata.com1
highradius.com1
klippa.com1
layer3labs.io1
ramp.com1
satvasolutions.com1

Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming Informatica Data Quality came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

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 Informatica Data Quality'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 Informatica Data Quality, 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 informatica.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