Every category where a model named Mercury 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
Business banking	Treasury and cash	20%	1 of 78	7%	43	accepted challenger
Treasury management systems	Treasury and cash	5%	9 of 124	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Trovata at 18%
Corporate cards	Spend and procurement	0%	31 of 63	25%	4	under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 69%
Spend management platforms	Spend and procurement	0%	16 of 39	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 49%
Business bill pay	Treasury and cash	0%	31 of 69	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by BILL at 35%
Expense management	Spend and procurement	0%	28 of 46	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 34%
Invoicing software	Receivables and billing	0%	56 of 86	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Wave at 19%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	2	2	0	4
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	1	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	7	0	1	10
Perplexity Sonar	0	3	0	1	4
Grok 4.1 Fast	4	1	3	0	8
Mistral Small	1	0	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	4	3	1	8
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	3	2	0	6
Kimi K2	3	2	1	1	7
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	2	0	4

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

Direct24 labels4

Paraphrase36 labels18

Comparative35 labels10not counted in share

Budget-constrained33 labels6

Scale-constrained22 labels6

Negative25 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative175 labels in all, every segment counted; 34 of the 46 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.

“I'd usually recommend Mercury if your priority is a modern, startup-friendly banking platform” GPT-5.4 mini · Business banking · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“For most mid-market B2B companies today, Mercury or Chase are the safest starting points” Kimi K2 · Business banking · direct prompt · first choice

“Mercury, which is considered the best overall digital business banking platform for startups” Llama 4 Maverick · Business banking · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Mercury remains the gold standard if you are digital-first and want maximum automation” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Business banking · paraphrase 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.

“Frequent account freezes/closure, slow support, funds held 60+ days | 15.4 negative reviews/month (4x industry average)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Business banking · negative prompt · hard negative

“neobanks (such as Mercury, Bluevine, or Novo) rely heavily on automated fraud-detection algorithms” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Business banking · negative prompt · soft negative

“Be cautious with: Fintech cards that are banking-adjacent rather than purpose-built (Mercury)” Kimi K2 · Corporate cards · negative prompt · soft negative

“does not support physical branches or cash deposits” Perplexity Sonar · Business banking · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Mercury, over the 175 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Mercury was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Brex96 of 1759Not in the top three

Chase Business Banking83 of 17513Compare →

Bluevine63 of 17515Compare →

Relay59 of 1756Not in the top three

Ramp58 of 17519Not in the top three

Bank of America54 of 1752Not in the top three

Rho53 of 1759Not in the top three

Novo44 of 1754Not in the top three

Wells Fargo29 of 1750Not in the top three

Airwallex24 of 1750Not 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 Mercury. 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 137 of the 175 answers that named Mercury and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

nerdwallet.com72

rho.co65

airwallex.com51

forbes.com50

finder.com47

handelsblatt.com46

found.com44

bluevine.com37

relayfi.com37

brex.com35

484 of the 484 domain citations in answers naming Mercury came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

handelsblatt.com/geschaeftskonto/vergleich45

relayfi.com/blog/best-online-business-bank-accounts-2026-guide33

forbes.com/financial-services/best-business-checking-accounts29

found.com/resources/business-banking/best-business-bank-accounts-small-business29

rho.co/blog/best-online-business-bank-accounts29

airwallex.com/en-us/blog/compare-business-bank-accounts28

backbase.com/blog/top-business-banking-platform-providers26

finder.com/business-banking24

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Mercury

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

Mercury Business Checking 3Mercury Business Account 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 Mercury'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 Mercury, 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 mercury.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.