Every category where a model named Payhawk 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
Spend management platforms	Spend and procurement	0%	8 of 39	0%	16	accepted challenger
Expense management	Spend and procurement	0%	19 of 46	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 34%
Corporate cards	Spend and procurement	0%	20 of 63	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 69%
Supplier management	Spend and procurement	0%	31 of 80	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Procurify at 26%
Accounts payable automation	Spend and procurement	0%	50 of 60	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Stampli at 19%
AI accounting assistants	Accounting and close	0%	44 of 79	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 25%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct13 labels1

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative20 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labels1

Scale-constrained15 labelsNone

Negative11 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative71 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“Payhawk is for mid-market finance teams that want supplier data tied directly to spend, approvals, and payments” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Supplier management · direct prompt · alternative

“a good fit if you need more procurement + vendor control + multi-module spend management” GPT-5.4 mini · Spend management platfor · direct prompt · alternative

“Payhawk / Spendesk — Strong if you're in Europe (multi-currency, EUR/GBP/etc.).” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Spend management platfor · scale prompt · alternative

“Payhawk excels at multi-entity spend, ERP sync, and native foreign currencies.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Spend management platfor · paraphrase 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 Payhawk, over the 71 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Payhawk was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Ramp60 of 7121Not in the top three

Brex47 of 715Not in the top three

Coupa34 of 719Not in the top three

BILL Spend & Expense28 of 712Not in the top three

Airbase28 of 711Not in the top three

SAP Concur26 of 716Not in the top three

Emburse24 of 710Not in the top three

Spendesk21 of 712Not in the top three

Navan19 of 710Not in the top three

Rippling Spend18 of 712Not 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 Payhawk. 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 69 of the 71 answers that named Payhawk and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

emburse.com35

gartner.com35

learn.g2.com27

payhawk.comYour site23

zylo.com23

ramp.com22

spendesk.com19

worldmetrics.org18

ofx.com16

rippling.com16

211 of the 234 domain citations in answers naming Payhawk came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

emburse.com/resources/best-spend-management-platforms34

gartner.com/reviews/market/expense-management-software34

zylo.com/blog/best-spend-management-software23

ofx.com/en-us/blog/best-expense-management-software-solutions16

fraxion.biz/blog/top-spend-management-software15

learn.g2.com/best-expense-management-software15

learn.g2.com/best-spend-management-software15

siit.io/blog/best-spend-management-tools15

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 Payhawk'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 Payhawk, 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 payhawk.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.