Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › SAP Audit Management · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

SAP Audit Management

5Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

4 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. SAP Audit Management was named 2 times in Internal controls, where AuditBoard led with 18%. 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-market37 of 71

under the label threshold

Enterprise22 of 65

under the label threshold

In internal controls · 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 SAP Audit Management 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
Internal controls and SOX	Tax and compliance	0%	37 of 71	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by AuditBoard at 18%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SAP Audit Management 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 SAP Audit Management 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	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	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

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 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.

“If a company is heavily invested in the SAP stack, SAP's own Audit Management tool is often the go-to solution.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Internal controls · comparative 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 SAP Audit Management, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP Audit Management was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Pathlock4 of 50Not in the top three

AuditBoard3 of 51Not in the top three

LogicGate Risk Cloud3 of 51Not in the top three

MetricStream3 of 51Not in the top three

Archer3 of 50Not in the top three

Diligent One Platform3 of 50Not in the top three

Workiva3 of 50Not in the top three

IBM OpenPages2 of 50Not in the top three

OneTrust GRC2 of 50Not in the top three

Resolver2 of 50Not 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 SAP Audit Management. 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 5 of the 5 answers that named SAP Audit Management and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

sprinto.com5

gartner.com4

supervizor.com4

optro.ai3

wifitalents.com3

gitnux.org2

worldmetrics.org2

auditboard.com1

auditboardchange.com1

ba-copilot.com1

Twenty-six of the twenty-six domain citations in answers naming SAP Audit Management came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

sprinto.com/blog/internal-control-software5

gartner.com/reviews/market/internal-controls-software4

supervizor.com/blog/grc/internal-control/software4

optro.ai/blog/best-internal-control-management-software3

gitnux.org/best/internal-controls-management-software2

gitnux.org/best/internal-controls-software2

wifitalents.com/best/internal-control-software2

worldmetrics.org/best/internal-control-management-software2

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 SAP Audit Management'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 SAP Audit Management, 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 sap.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.