Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › PingPong · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

PingPong

1Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

1 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. PingPong was named 1 time in B2B payment acceptance, where Helcim led with 17%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market78 of 91

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In b2b payment acceptance · 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 PingPong 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
B2B payment acceptance	Receivables and billing	0%	78 of 91	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Helcim at 17%

Movement

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

Model	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	1	1
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

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“very low Trustpilot rating (2.0/5) due to technical issues... difficulties withdrawing funds” Mistral Small · B2B payment acceptance · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as PingPong, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PingPong was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

BlueSnap1 of 10Not in the top three

Clear Junction1 of 10Not in the top three

Fiserv1 of 10Not in the top three

Melio1 of 10Not in the top three

Payza1 of 10Not in the top three

Worldpay1 of 10Not 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 PingPong. 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 1 of the 1 answers that named PingPong and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

airwallex.com1

checkthat.ai1

listings.ratex42.com1

nz.trustpilot.com1

steingardfinancial.com1

triple-a.io1

versapay.com1

wondergate.io1

xtransfer.com1

Nine of the nine domain citations in answers naming PingPong came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

airwallex.com/en-my/blog/pingpong-review1

checkthat.ai/brands/melio/reviews1

checkthat.ai/brands/worldpay/reviews1

listings.ratex42.com/the-10-worst-rated-payment-processors-in-the-high-risk-sector-accordi1

nz.trustpilot.com/review/clearjunction.com1

steingardfinancial.com/b-2-b-payment-platforms1

triple-a.io/blog/best-b2b-payment-solutions1

versapay.com/resources/most-least-secure-b2b-payment-methods1

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 PingPong'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 PingPong, 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 pingpong.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.