Every category where a model named Zenskar 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
Revenue recognition	Accounting and close	0%	22 of 77	0%	13	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

Direct8 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative12 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative27 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

“For enterprises with complex contracts and high compliance needs: Trullion, Aviso, Zenskar, Oracle Revenue Management.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Revenue recognition · comparative prompt · alternative

“newer entrants like Zenskar, Ordway, and Maxio\u2014though you should still evaluate these” Kimi K2 · Revenue recognition · negative prompt · alternative

“For event-driven, API-heavy workflows, BillingPlatform or Zenskar are best.” Mistral Small · Revenue recognition · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for: Contract-schedule governance for usage-based subscriptions” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Revenue recognition · 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 Zenskar, over the 27 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Zenskar was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Maxio15 of 271Not in the top three

Zuora Revenue11 of 274Not in the top three

RightRev10 of 273Not in the top three

Trullion9 of 273Not in the top three

NetSuite Advanced Revenue Management9 of 270Not in the top three

LedgerUp7 of 270Not in the top three

QuickBooks Online6 of 272Not in the top three

Chargebee6 of 270Not in the top three

Oracle NetSuite6 of 270Not in the top three

Workday Financial Management6 of 270Not 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 Zenskar. 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 25 of the 27 answers that named Zenskar and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ledgerup.ai18

zenskar.comYour site18

dualentry.com14

worldmetrics.org14

younium.com14

hubifi.com10

pipedrive.com10

wise.com10

rightrev.com8

capterra.com7

105 of the 123 domain citations in answers naming Zenskar came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

dualentry.com/blog/best-revenue-recognition-software14

ledgerup.ai/resources/7-best-revenue-recognition-software-for-saas-202614

worldmetrics.org/best/revenue-recognition-software13

pipedrive.com/en/blog/best-revenue-recognition-software10

wise.com/us/blog/best-revenue-recognition-software10

younium.com/blog/revenue-recognition-software10

zenskar.com/buyers-guide/revenue-recognition-software10

capterra.com/revenue-recognition-software7

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 Zenskar'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 Zenskar, 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 zenskar.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.