Every category where a model named Zip 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
Supplier management	Spend and procurement	2%	9 of 80	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Procurify at 26%
Strategic sourcing	Spend and procurement	2%	12 of 127	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Precoro at 17%
Procure-to-pay	Spend and procurement	0%	18 of 85	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Procurify at 45%
Spend management platforms	Spend and procurement	0%	26 of 39	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 49%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	7	1	10
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	2	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	3	1	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	1

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

Direct6 labels1

Paraphrase10 labels1

Comparative16 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labels1

Scale-constrained7 labels2

Negative5 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative48 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 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.

“Widely regarded as a category leader for the mid-market. It is highly user-friendly, has strong workflow automation” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Strategic sourcing · scale prompt · first choice

“Best for Intake, Onboarding, & Risk Orchestration: Zip (Zip HQ) ... Zip is the market leader.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Supplier management · direct prompt · first choice

“Zip (Intake-to-Pay): Incredible "intake" UX that orchestrates requests across legal, security, IT, and finance” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Procure-to-pay · scale prompt · alternative

“look at agile, modern, and modular platforms (like *Kodiak Hub*, *Zip*, *Procurify*, or *Stampli*)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Supplier management · negative 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 Zip, over the 48 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Zip was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Coupa41 of 4812Not in the top three

SAP Ariba39 of 488Not in the top three

Jaggaer22 of 483Not in the top three

Ivalua21 of 483Not in the top three

GEP SMART17 of 480Not in the top three

Procurify16 of 486Not in the top three

Precoro14 of 483Not in the top three

Oracle Fusion Cloud Procurement11 of 481Not in the top three

Tipalti7 of 481Not in the top three

Gatekeeper6 of 481Not 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 Zip. 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 48 answers that named Zip and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com12

sifthub.io8

worldmetrics.org8

zapro.ai7

f6s.com6

learn.g2.com6

mindsprint.com5

procurify.com5

g2.com4

gitnux.org4

Sixty-five of the sixty-five domain citations in answers naming Zip came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

sifthub.io/blog/procurement-technology-platform7

gartner.com/reviews/market/supplier-onboarding-software4

mindsprint.com/resources/blogs/b2b-procurement-platform4

zamp.ai/blogs/best-vendor-onboarding-software-in-2025-sap-ariba-vs-coupa-vs-zip-vs-ai-agen4

atlassystems.com/blog/best-supplier-onboarding-software3

creditpulse.com/blog/vendor-onboarding-software3

doss.com/trends/best-procurement-platforms-for-2026-a-complete-buyers-guide-for-physical-p3

f6s.com/software/category/vendor-onboarding-automation3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Zip

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

Zip (Intake-to-Procure) 1Zip (Zip HQ) 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 Zip'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 Zip, 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 ziphq.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.