Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › Supervizor · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Supervizor

4Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

4 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. Supervizor was named 1 time in Internal controls, where AuditBoard led with 18%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business87 of 113

under the label threshold

Mid-market48 of 71

under the label threshold

Enterprise28 of 65

under the label threshold

In internal controls · 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 Supervizor 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%	48 of 71	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by AuditBoard at 18%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	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	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1
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

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

“350+ pre-built controls, deploys in days; not a documentation platform” Kimi K2 · Internal controls · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Supervizor, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Supervizor was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

AuditBoard4 of 42Not in the top three

Diligent One Platform3 of 40Not in the top three

LogicGate Risk Cloud3 of 40Not in the top three

MetricStream3 of 40Not in the top three

Workiva3 of 40Not in the top three

Archer2 of 40Not in the top three

OneTrust GRC2 of 40Not in the top three

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management2 of 40Not in the top three

Vanta2 of 40Not in the top three

Drata1 of 41Not 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 Supervizor. 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 4 of the 4 answers that named Supervizor and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gitnux.org4

supervizor.comYour site4

gartner.com3

optro.ai3

sprinto.com3

usebead.ai2

v-comply.com2

wifitalents.com2

worldmetrics.org2

8020consulting.com1

Twenty-two of the twenty-six domain citations in answers naming Supervizor came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gitnux.org/best/internal-controls-management-software4

supervizor.com/blog/grc/internal-control/software4

gartner.com/reviews/market/internal-controls-software3

optro.ai/blog/best-internal-control-management-software3

sprinto.com/blog/internal-control-software3

gitnux.org/best/internal-control-software2

usebead.ai/blog/audit-software-comparison-top-tools-internal-audit-teams-20262

8020consulting.com/blog/top-internal-control-management-software-solution1

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 Supervizor'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 Supervizor, 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 supervizor.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.