Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › Teamwork.com · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Teamwork.com

3Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

3 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

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Teamwork.com was named 3 times in Financial reporting, where Sage Intacct led with 27%. 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-market44 of 133

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In financial reporting · 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 Teamwork.com 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 reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	0%	44 of 133	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 27%

Movement

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

Model	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
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

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Teamwork.com, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Teamwork.com was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Tableau3 of 30Not in the top three

Domo2 of 30Not in the top three

Google Analytics2 of 30Not in the top three

HubSpot2 of 30Not in the top three

Microsoft Power BI2 of 30Not in the top three

SAP Crystal Reports2 of 30Not in the top three

Asana1 of 30Not in the top three

ClickUp1 of 30Not in the top three

Crazy Egg1 of 30Not in the top three

Hive1 of 30Not 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 Teamwork.com. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named Teamwork.com and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

productive.io3

teamwork.comYour site3

basedash.com2

domo.com2

fanruan.com2

kanerika.com2

thedigitalprojectmanager.com2

1clickreport.com1

amoeboids.com1

clearpointstrategy.com1

Sixteen of the nineteen domain citations in answers naming Teamwork.com came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

productive.io/blog/reporting-tools3

teamwork.com/blog/reporting-tools3

basedash.com/blog/best-automated-reporting-tools-compared-20262

domo.com/learn/article/reporting-tools2

fanruan.com/en/blog/best-data-reporting-tools2

kanerika.com/blogs/enterprise-reporting-tools2

thedigitalprojectmanager.com/tools/best-reporting-tools2

1clickreport.com/blog/dashboard-reporting-tools-2026-comparison1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Teamwork.com

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

Teamwork 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 Teamwork.com'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 Teamwork.com, 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 teamwork.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.