Every category where a model named SAP GRC 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%	66 of 71	50%	4	under 10 labels · led by AuditBoard at 18%
Global e-invoicing compliance	Tax and compliance	0%	94 of 108	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Avalara at 28%

Movement

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

Model	Mention	Negative	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	1	1
Mistral Small	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	2
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
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

Direct8 labels1

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative7 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained4 labels1

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative28 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 3 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.

“Only choose these if you have a dedicated team willing to spend 6–12 months configuring workflows” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Internal controls · negative prompt · soft negative

“It is much easier to implement than a full suite like SAP GRC or Oracle BIP.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Global e-invoicing compl · direct prompt · soft negative

“non-SAP integrations may underperform” Grok 4.1 Fast · Internal controls · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as SAP GRC, over the 28 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP GRC was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

MetricStream19 of 281Not in the top three

AuditBoard18 of 288Not in the top three

Workiva18 of 282Not in the top three

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management15 of 280Not in the top three

Diligent One Platform11 of 280Not in the top three

Oracle GRC10 of 280Not in the top three

Vanta8 of 282Not in the top three

Drata8 of 281Not in the top three

Archer6 of 280Not in the top three

LogicGate Risk Cloud6 of 280Not 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 GRC. 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 21 of the 28 answers that named SAP GRC and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

optro.ai14

worldmetrics.org14

netwrix.com10

checkthat.ai9

gitnux.org9

riskpublishing.com9

gartner.com8

highradius.com8

zipdo.co8

riskwatch.com7

Ninety-six of the ninety-six domain citations in answers naming SAP GRC came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

netwrix.com/en/resources/blog/sox-compliance-software10

checkthat.ai/answers/what-are-the-best-tools-for-sarbanes-oxley-act-compliance9

optro.ai/blog/best-sox-management-software9

gitnux.org/best/internal-control-software8

highradius.com/resources/Blog/best-sox-compliance-tools8

riskpublishing.com/best-sox-compliance-software-compared8

gartner.com/reviews/market/internal-controls-software7

optro.ai/blog/best-internal-control-management-software6

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 GRC'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 GRC, 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 sapgrc.ai 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.