Every category where a model named SAP Concur Invoice 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
Accounts payable automation	Spend and procurement	0%	15 of 60	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Stampli at 19%
Invoicing software	Receivables and billing	0%	63 of 86	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Wave at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SAP Concur Invoice 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 Concur Invoice 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	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	1

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase4 labels1

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labels2

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative7 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 4 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.

“Suited for large enterprises needing complex expense management and global compliance.” Mistral Small · Accounts payable automat · comparative prompt · alternative

“Large enterprise with complex expense/PO needs | Coupa or SAP Concur Invoice” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Accounts payable automat · comparative prompt · alternative

“Enterprise + complex workflows: SAP Concur, Medius” MiniMax M2.5 · Accounts payable automat · comparative prompt · alternative

“Enterprise ERP integration (SAP) | SAP Concur Invoice” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Accounts payable automat · 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 Concur Invoice, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP Concur Invoice was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Tipalti19 of 251Not in the top three

BILL16 of 251Not in the top three

Stampli12 of 250Not in the top three

Coupa11 of 251Not in the top three

Ramp10 of 253Not in the top three

AvidXchange10 of 251Not in the top three

HighRadius8 of 251Not in the top three

Medius7 of 252Not in the top three

NetSuite5 of 252Not in the top three

Basware5 of 250Not 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 Concur Invoice. 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 25 of the 25 answers that named SAP Concur Invoice and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

layer3labs.io17

makershub.com10

ramp.com9

conseroglobal.com8

g2.com8

tipalti.com8

bill.com7

gitnux.org7

learn.g2.com7

highradius.com6

Eighty-seven of the eighty-seven domain citations in answers naming SAP Concur Invoice came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

layer3labs.io/comparisons/best-accounts-payable-automation-software17

conseroglobal.com/resources/best-accounts-payable-software8

zoneandco.com/articles/top-ap-automation-software-solutions6

makershub.com/blog/best-accounts-payable-software-large-businesses5

makershub.com/blog/best-ap-automation-software5

medius.com/blog/top-ap-automation-software-compared-features-fit-and-tradeoffs5

bill.com/blog/best-invoice-automation-software4

buildlist.io/reviews/best-ap-automation-software4

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 Concur Invoice'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 Concur Invoice, 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.