Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › PeopleGoal · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

PeopleGoal

4Judge labels

2First choices

0Negative labels

2 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. PeopleGoal was named 1 time in Corporate performance ma, where Planful led with 29%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business16 of 88

under the label threshold

Mid-market11 of 95

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In corporate performance ma · 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 PeopleGoal 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
Corporate performance management	Planning and analysis	2%	11 of 95	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Planful at 29%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained2 labels2

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

“Choose PeopleGoal if your budget is very limited and you want the lowest entry cost.” Perplexity Sonar · Corporate performance ma · budget 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 PeopleGoal, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PeopleGoal was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Workday Adaptive Planning4 of 40Not in the top three

Vena2 of 41Not in the top three

15Five2 of 40Not in the top three

Anaplan2 of 40Not in the top three

BambooHR2 of 40Not in the top three

Datarails2 of 40Not in the top three

Jirav2 of 40Not in the top three

OneStream2 of 40Not in the top three

Planful2 of 40Not in the top three

Admin By Request1 of 40Not 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 PeopleGoal. 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 4 of the 4 answers that named PeopleGoal and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gbhackers.com4

peoplegoal.comYour site4

softwareconnect.com4

cybersecuritynews.com3

drivetrain.ai3

lupahire.com3

peoplemanagingpeople.com3

thecfoclub.com3

8020consulting.com2

cyberpress.org2

Twenty-seven of the thirty-one domain citations in answers naming PeopleGoal came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gbhackers.com/best-epm-tools-compared-24

peoplegoal.com/blog/epm-software4

softwareconnect.com/roundups/best-epm-software4

cybersecuritynews.com/best-endpoint-privilege-management-tools/amp3

drivetrain.ai/solutions/enterprise-performance-management-software3

lupahire.com/blog/enterprise-performance-management-software3

peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/epm-software3

thecfoclub.com/tools/best-epm-software3

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 PeopleGoal'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 PeopleGoal, 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 peoplegoal.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.