Every category where a model named Spendwise 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
Procure-to-pay	Spend and procurement	4%	7 of 85	12%	8	under 10 labels · led by Procurify at 45%
Supplier management	Spend and procurement	2%	14 of 80	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Procurify at 26%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	2	0	0	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	2	0	3
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	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labelsNone

Comparative11 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained14 labels4

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative38 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 5 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.

“the best procure-to-pay choice is usually Spendwise if you want a dedicated P2P/purchasing tool at the lowest published price” Perplexity Sonar · Procure-to-pay · budget prompt · first choice

“Spendwise looks like the strongest low-budget pick because it has transparent pricing starting at $9/user/month” GPT-5.4 mini · Procure-to-pay · budget prompt · first choice

“Best overall for a limited budget: Spendwise” GPT-5.4 mini · Supplier management · budget prompt · first choice

“Spendwise (per‑user) or Digital Purchase Order (flat fee) are excellent low‑cost options.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Procure-to-pay · budget 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.

“good starting points, but these tools lack advanced workflows and budget controls” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Procure-to-pay · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Spendwise, over the 38 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Spendwise was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Tradogram30 of 385Not in the top three

Precoro29 of 3813Not in the top three

Procurify27 of 386Not in the top three

Ramp21 of 388Not in the top three

Coupa11 of 380Not in the top three

SAP Ariba9 of 380Not in the top three

Odoo7 of 382Not in the top three

Zoho Inventory7 of 381Not in the top three

ProcureDesk7 of 380Not in the top three

ProcurementExpress.com7 of 380Not 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 Spendwise. 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 36 of the 38 answers that named Spendwise and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

spendflo.com23

procuredesk.com22

tradogram.com21

learn.g2.com20

ramp.com20

g2.com19

siit.io13

softwareconnect.com11

vndly.io11

mindsprint.com10

170 of the 170 domain citations in answers naming Spendwise came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

tradogram.com/blog/12-best-purchasing-software-for-small-mid-size-companies19

spendflo.com/blog/procurement-software-for-small-business-success18

ramp.com/blog/procurement-software-small-business17

learn.g2.com/best-procure-to-pay-software13

siit.io/blog/best-procurement-software13

procuredesk.com/best-procurement-software12

vndly.io/blog/best-purchase-order-software-small-business-202611

procurementvms.com/procurement/best-procurement-software.html9

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 Spendwise'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 Spendwise, 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 spendwise.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.