Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › Spotlight Reporting · September 2026 Edition

Spotlight · 3 categories · Named, not ranked

Spotlight Reporting

16Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

6 of 12Models named it

3Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Spotlight Reporting was named 6 times in Cash flow forecasting and 2 other categories, where Agicap led with 18%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market50 of 86

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In cash flow forecasting · 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 Spotlight Reporting 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
Cash flow forecasting	Treasury and cash	0%	50 of 86	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Agicap at 18%
Financial reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	0%	38 of 133	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 27%
Financial consolidation	Accounting and close	0%	86 of 96	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Prophix at 19%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	1	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase6 labelsNone

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative16 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.

“Best if you need scheduled, repeatable dashboard packs with strong multi-currency and multi-entity support” Kimi K2 · Financial reporting · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“often rated highly for multi-entity variance reporting and rolling updates with approval trails” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Cash flow forecasting · comparative prompt · alternative

“Accountant-friendly; great for structured reporting. Slightly less visual than Fathom.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Financial reporting · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“SMB needing fast rolling forecasts with approvals | Spotlight Reporting” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Cash flow forecasting · 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.

“early AI in Fathom/Spotlight (no daily tracking)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Cash flow forecasting · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Spotlight Reporting, over the 16 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Spotlight Reporting was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Fathom14 of 164Not in the top three

Cube6 of 162Not in the top three

Syft Analytics6 of 160Not in the top three

Datarails5 of 161Not in the top three

Planful5 of 160Not in the top three

Vena5 of 160Not in the top three

Joiin4 of 160Not in the top three

Workday Adaptive Planning4 of 160Not in the top three

Centage Planning Maestro3 of 161Not in the top three

Fairview3 of 161Not 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 Spotlight Reporting. 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 15 of the 16 answers that named Spotlight Reporting and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

fathomhq.com10

gitnux.org9

worldmetrics.org9

highradius.com7

cubesoftware.com6

zipdo.co6

g2.com5

getfairview.com4

prophix.com4

barc.com3

Sixty-three of the sixty-three domain citations in answers naming Spotlight Reporting came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

fathomhq.com/blog/the-6-best-financial-consolidation-software-solutions-in-20246

gitnux.org/best/finance-dashboard-software5

worldmetrics.org/best/financial-dashboard-software5

getfairview.com/blog/best-financial-dashboard-software4

prophix.com/blog/the-12-best-financial-consolidation-software-tools-for-fp-a-teams4

worldmetrics.org/best/finance-dashboard-software4

barc.com/reviews/consolidation-software3

fathomhq.com/blog/fathom-vs-spotlight-reporting3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Spotlight Reporting

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Spotlight Reporting; a claim can dispute any of them.

Spotlight 1

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 Spotlight Reporting'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 Spotlight Reporting, 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 spotlightreporting.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.