Index › Vendors › Investran · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Investran

8Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

4 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. Investran was named 1 time in Board, where OnBoard led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business73 of 97

under the label threshold

Mid-market71 of 97

under the label threshold

Enterprise27 of 111

under the label threshold

In board · 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 Investran 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
Board and investor reporting	Planning and analysis	0%	71 of 97	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by OnBoard at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Investran 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 Investran 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	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
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	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative8 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 Investran, over the 8 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Investran was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Visible6 of 83Not in the top three

Q43 of 82Not in the top three

Carta2 of 80Not in the top three

Aleph1 of 80Not in the top three

Allvue1 of 80Not in the top three

Altvia1 of 80Not in the top three

DocSend1 of 80Not in the top three

Dynamo1 of 80Not in the top three

Fairview1 of 80Not in the top three

Foundersuite1 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 Investran. 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 8 of the 8 answers that named Investran and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

zipdo.co8

worldmetrics.org6

g2.com5

gartner.com5

getfairview.com4

gitnux.org4

qubit.capital4

pickmysoft.com3

visible.vc3

wifitalents.com3

No domain is on file for Investran, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

zipdo.co/best/investor-reporting-software8

worldmetrics.org/best/investor-reporting-software6

gartner.com/reviews/market/investor-relations-ir-software5

g2.com/categories/investor-reporting/small-business4

getfairview.com/best/investor-reporting-software4

qubit.capital/blog/best-investor-relations-tools-software4

pickmysoft.com/blog/best-investor-relations-software3

visible.vc/blog/best-crm-for-fundraising3

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 Investran'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 Investran, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.