Every category where a model named LedgerUp 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
Revenue recognition	Accounting and close	13%	3 of 77	0%	20	accepted challenger
Cash application	Receivables and billing	0%	37 of 83	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by HighRadius at 16%
Accounts receivable automation	Receivables and billing	0%	47 of 77	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Zoho Books at 15%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	1	1	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	2	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	3	1	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	2	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1	2
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	2	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	2	1	0	3

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

Direct11 labels5

Paraphrase12 labels2

Comparative11 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative39 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 7 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-market B2B SaaS companies, LedgerUp is the top recommendation due to its focus on data reconciliation and accuracy” Mistral Small · Revenue recognition · direct prompt · first choice

“For most mid-market B2B companies, LedgerUp offers the best balance of automation, pricing” MiniMax M2.5 · Revenue recognition · direct prompt · first choice

“If you want a single practical recommendation, LedgerUp is the strongest fit” Perplexity Sonar · Revenue recognition · direct prompt · first choice

“If you want a dedicated, fast-to-implement SaaS solution → LedgerUp or RightRev.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Revenue recognition · direct 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as LedgerUp, over the 39 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and LedgerUp was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Maxio20 of 391Compare →

RightRev17 of 392Not in the top three

NetSuite Advanced Revenue Management16 of 390Not in the top three

Sage Intacct13 of 394Compare →

Chargebee RevRec12 of 391Not in the top three

Zuora Revenue11 of 393Not in the top three

SAP Revenue Accounting and Reporting8 of 390Not in the top three

Younium8 of 390Not in the top three

HighRadius7 of 395Not in the top three

BillingPlatform7 of 391Not 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 LedgerUp. 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 38 of the 39 answers that named LedgerUp and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ledgerup.aiYour site38

worldmetrics.org19

rightrev.com18

younium.com18

eleven.run17

hubifi.com15

dualentry.com11

highradius.com11

zenskar.com11

erpresearch.com9

129 of the 167 domain citations in answers naming LedgerUp came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

ledgerup.ai/resources/7-best-revenue-recognition-software-for-saas-202628

eleven.run/blog/best-revenue-recognition-software17

ledgerup.ai/resources/best-asc-606-revenue-recognition-software-202617

younium.com/blog/revenue-recognition-software17

worldmetrics.org/best/asc-606-revenue-recognition-software13

dualentry.com/blog/best-revenue-recognition-software11

rightrev.com/top-revenue-recognition-software-2026-a-comprehensive-buyers-guide11

zenskar.com/buyers-guide/revenue-recognition-software9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as LedgerUp

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

LedgerUp / Maxio / Chargebee RevRec 1Ledgerup 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 LedgerUp'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 LedgerUp, 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 ledgerup.ai 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.