Mid-marketnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 80 of 84, unchanged
Solid Financial Technologies
2Judge labels
0First choices
2Negative labels
1 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, 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. Solid Financial Technologies was named 2 times in B2B payment acceptance and 1 other category, where Versapay led with 19%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small businessnot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
Mid-market89 of 94
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In b2b payment acceptance · 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 Solid Financial Technologies 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2B payment acceptance | Receivables and billing | 0% | 89 of 94 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Versapay at 19% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Embedded payments platforms | Receivables and billing | 0% | 107 of 110 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Stripe Connect at 53% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Solid Financial Technologies held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · B2B payment acceptance · by segment
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2B payment acceptance | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 89 of 94, unchanged |
| Embedded payments | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 107 of 110, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 10 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Solid Financial Technologies across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Solid Financial Technologies across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 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
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative2 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.
“the subsequent collapse of Solid Financial Technologies (2025)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · B2B payment acceptance · negative prompt · hard negative
“Solid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Embedded payments · negative prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Solid Financial Technologies, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Solid Financial Technologies was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Solid Financial Technologies, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Solid Financial Technologies was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 Solid Financial Technologies. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 2 of the 2 answers that named Solid Financial Technologies and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
americanbanker.com2
consumerfinance.gov2
fintechweekly.com2
reddit.com2
yalejournal.org2
appinventiv.com1
bankdirector.com1
bankingdive.com1
ca.trustpilot.com1
convera.com1
No domain is on file for Solid Financial Technologies, so its own site is not marked.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Names read as Solid Financial Technologies
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Solid Financial Technologies; a claim can dispute any of them.
Solid Financial Technologies (Solid) 1
Follow Solid Financial Technologies
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
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 Solid Financial Technologies'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 Solid Financial Technologies, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Solid Financial Technologies by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Solid Financial Technologies is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Solid Financial Technologies, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.