Finance AI Index
Index Vendors › OnBoard · September 2026 Edition
2 categories · Ranked

OnBoard

96Judge labels
15First choices
16Negative labels
12 of 12Models named it
2Categories
September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
25% in Board for mid-market buyers
Rank 1 of 97 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
8 of 12 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 16% of its 37 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentStrongest at mid-market.
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 OnBoard 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
Board and investor reportingPlanning and analysis25%1 of 9716%37accepted challenger
Entity managementEquity and corporate0%23 of 870%3under 10 labels · led by Athennian at 18%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for OnBoard 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 OnBoard across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.511002
GPT-5.4 mini11013
Gemini 3.5 Flash40004
Perplexity Sonar11103
Grok 4.1 Fast11114
Mistral Small01102
DeepSeek V4 Flash11125
Llama 4 Maverick01203
Qwen 3.7 Flash11114
Kimi K212104
GLM 4.7 FlashX11013
MiniMax M2.511103

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
Direct22 labels10
Paraphrase3 labelsNone
Comparative27 labels3not counted in share
Budget-constrained18 labels1
Scale-constrained15 labels4
Negative11 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative96 labels in all, every segment counted; 15 of the 19 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.

“OnBoard is identified as the "UX Leader" of 2026, using AI to automate board book creation and is best for mid-market corporations seeking rapid adoption” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Board · direct prompt · first choice
“If you want a single recommendation: choose OnBoard for the best blend of mid-market fit, board functionality, and ease of adoption” Perplexity Sonar · Board · direct prompt · first choice
“OnBoard: Highly secure, incredibly intuitive, and widely considered the "sweet spot" for mid-market companies. Excellent mobile UX.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Board · scale prompt · first choice
“It is widely considered one of the easiest-to-adopt portals. It requires almost no training for non-technical board directors.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Board · comparative 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.

“OnBoard: Frequent gripes about agenda glitches, permission settings, navigation difficulties, and upload issues” Grok 4.1 Fast · Board · negative prompt · soft negative
“What to avoid on a tight budget... pricing is typically quote-based and often steeper” GPT-5.4 mini · Board · budget prompt · soft negative
“Good for board meetings, but be prepared for a learning curve and higher cost.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Board · negative prompt · soft negative
“Steep learning curve, especially around level-based permission settings” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Board · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OnBoard, over the 95 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OnBoard was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Nasdaq Boardvantage53 of 9511Not in the top three
Diligent Boards50 of 9512Not in the top three
BoardEffect34 of 950Not in the top three
AppDeck Board Portal30 of 955Not in the top three
Azeus Convene27 of 950Not in the top three
Diligent25 of 953Not in the top three
Board Intelligence22 of 950Not in the top three
Aprio Board Portal18 of 952Not 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 OnBoard. 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 80 of the 95 answers that named OnBoard and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appdeck.com64
worldmetrics.org48
board-room.org47
clearpointstrategy.com42
g2.com37
capterra.com31
guideflow.com28
fast.io27
boardintelligence.com25
gitnux.org24

373 of the 373 domain citations in answers naming OnBoard came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as OnBoard

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as OnBoard; a claim can dispute any of them.
Passageways 4OnBoard (Passageways) 1OnBoard (formerly BoardEffect) 1OnBoard Board Management 1OnBoard Board Portal 1Passageways (OnSemble) 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 OnBoard'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 OnBoard, 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 onboardmeetings.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.