Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › SAP PowerDesigner · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

SAP PowerDesigner

6Judge labels

0First choices

4Negative labels

5 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. SAP PowerDesigner was named 1 time in Financial modeling, where Datarails led with 19%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business112 of 121

under the label threshold

Mid-market104 of 114

under the label threshold

Enterprise65 of 92

under the label threshold

In financial modeling · 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 PowerDesigner 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
Financial modeling and scenario planning	Planning and analysis	0%	104 of 114	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Datarails at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SAP PowerDesigner 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 PowerDesigner 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	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1
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

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.

“Industry reviews warn about an uncertain maintenance runway... complex interface and high licensing costs.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Financial modeling · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as SAP PowerDesigner, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP PowerDesigner was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Erwin Data Modeler6 of 62Not in the top three

ER/Studio6 of 60Not in the top three

IBM InfoSphere Data Architect3 of 60Not in the top three

Lucidchart3 of 60Not in the top three

Microsoft Excel3 of 60Not in the top three

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect3 of 60Not in the top three

Anaplan2 of 61Not in the top three

ChatGPT2 of 60Not in the top three

DbSchema2 of 60Not in the top three

Gemini2 of 60Not 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 PowerDesigner. 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 6 of the 6 answers that named SAP PowerDesigner and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

skyvia.com5

erstudio.com4

datacamp.com3

hevodata.com3

smartdatacollective.com3

solutionsreview.com3

sourceforge.net3

datasherpa.blog2

guideflow.com2

integrate.io2

Thirty of the thirty domain citations in answers naming SAP PowerDesigner came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

skyvia.com/blog/top-data-modeling-tools5

datacamp.com/blog/data-modeling-tools3

erstudio.com/blog/best-data-modeling-tools3

hevodata.com/learn/data-modeling-tools3

smartdatacollective.com/data-modeling-tools3

solutionsreview.com/data-management/the-best-enterprise-data-modeling-tools-software3

datasherpa.blog/p/evaluation-of-data-modeling-tools-2025-part-12

integrate.io/blog/best-data-modeling-tools2

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 PowerDesigner'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 PowerDesigner, 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.