Every category where a model named ProcureDesk 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
Procure-to-pay	Spend and procurement	4%	5 of 85	0%	12	accepted challenger
Supplier management	Spend and procurement	0%	23 of 80	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Procurify at 26%
Accounts payable automation	Spend and procurement	0%	53 of 60	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Stampli at 19%
Business bill pay	Treasury and cash	0%	48 of 69	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by BILL at 35%
Strategic sourcing	Spend and procurement	0%	61 of 127	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Precoro at 17%

Movement

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

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

Direct11 labels3

Paraphrase9 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained10 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative2 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative37 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 5 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.

“ProcureDesk appears to be a strong choice specifically built for mid-market.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Procure-to-pay · direct prompt · first choice

“ProcureDesk is the best overall choice for most mid-market B2B companies” Perplexity Sonar · Procure-to-pay · direct prompt · first choice

“Finance-led AP + procurement | ~$600/month (10 users)| AP automation emphasis | Higher entry cost” Grok 4.1 Fast · Procure-to-pay · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Best for: Mid-sized teams focused on automating accounts payable (AP) and inventory matching.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Procure-to-pay · 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 ProcureDesk, over the 37 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ProcureDesk was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Precoro27 of 378Not in the top three

Procurify26 of 377Not in the top three

Tradogram22 of 379Not in the top three

Coupa18 of 370Not in the top three

SAP Ariba17 of 370Not in the top three

Ramp11 of 373Not in the top three

Spendwise7 of 371Not in the top three

Pipefy6 of 370Not in the top three

Stampli5 of 371Not in the top three

GEP SMART5 of 370Not 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 ProcureDesk. 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 30 of the 37 answers that named ProcureDesk and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

procuredesk.comYour site17

tradogram.com17

mindsprint.com14

g2.com13

learn.g2.com13

softwareadvice.com10

spendflo.com10

softwareconnect.com9

ramp.com8

procurementvms.com7

101 of the 118 domain citations in answers naming ProcureDesk came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

tradogram.com/blog/12-best-purchasing-software-for-small-mid-size-companies17

procuredesk.com/best-procurement-software7

learn.g2.com/best-procure-to-pay-software6

mindsprint.com/resources/blogs/source-to-pay-software6

mindsprint.com/resources/blogs/vendor-management-software6

procurementvms.com/procurement/best-procurement-software.html6

ramp.com/blog/procurement-software-small-business5

spendflo.com/blog/procurement-software-for-small-business-success5

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 ProcureDesk'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 ProcureDesk, 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 procuredesk.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.