Index › Planning and analysis › Financial modeling › Vena vs Google Sheets

Financial modeling and scenario planning · October 2026 Edition

Vena vs Google Sheets

One of fourteen models named Vena first on the direct prompt; zero named Google Sheets. Vena was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Google Sheets by twelve and Vena carries 21 labels and Google Sheets 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Vena

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

Google Sheets

accepted challenger

Named in fifteen categories this edition.

First-choice share12%9%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate5%15%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#3#5A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.

Labels2113A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Vena reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Datarails was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Microsoft Excel vs Vena · Microsoft Excel vs Google Sheets · Cube vs Vena

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the financial modeling and scenario planning page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.

VenaFirst choices, of fourteen modelsGoogle Sheets

Direct10

Paraphrase50

Comparative00

Budget-constrained061 against Vena

Scale-constrained20

Negative002 against Google Sheets

Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Vena and Google Sheets stood in it.

Model	Direct	Paraphrase	Comparative	Budget-constrained	Scale-constrained	Negative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B

Vena

Google Sheets

first choice

named as an alternative

argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Vena on the left and Google Sheets on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Vena and Google Sheets stood in it.

Vena first, Google Sheets not the choice

1 of 14 modelsGoogle Sheets was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

Qwen 3.7 FlashVena, Workday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Fathom, PlanGuru

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.

GPT-5.4 miniDatarails, Planful alternatives: Anaplan, Vena

Gemini 3.5 FlashAleph, Cube alternatives: Abacum, Bob Finance, Pigment, Vena

DeepSeek V4 FlashCube alternatives: Datarails, Jirav, Planful, Vena

GPT-6 LunaWorkday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Cube, Vena

Neither was named

9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.

Claude Haiku 4.5Datarails alternatives: Cube, Drivetrain, Planful, Prophix One

Perplexity SonarDatarails, Limelight alternatives: Abacum, Workday Adaptive Planning

Grok 4.1 FastCube, Datarails, Drivetrain, Jirav alternatives: Abacum

Mistral SmallAbacum alternatives: Cube, Datarails

Llama 4 Maverickno first choice

Kimi K2Drivetrain alternatives: Mosaic, Pigment

GLM 4.7 FlashXDatarails alternatives: Abacum, Cube, Lucanet xP&A, Mosaic

MiniMax M2.5Drivetrain alternatives: Abacum, Cube, Datarails, Pigment

Muse Glimmer 30BDatarails alternatives: Cube, Drivetrain, Mosaic, Planful

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.

Small business

Google Sheets leads by nineteen points.

Google Sheets#1 of 10

Vena#– of 10

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

The order flips: Vena leads at mid-market.

Vena#3 of 14

Google Sheets#5 of 14

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

Vena#9 of 12

Google Sheets#– of 12

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Vena

No label in this category carried a quote.

What the models said about Google Sheets

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“starting with Google Sheets or Excel and upgrading to a dedicated tool ... is the most cost-effective approach” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice

“Best low-budget choice: Google Sheets for a small company building budgets, forecasts, and scenario models” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice

“start with Microsoft Excel or Google Sheets if you need a simple, flexible solution” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice

Also compared

Microsoft Excel vs Vena Microsoft Excel vs Google Sheets Cube vs Vena Cube vs Google Sheets Vena vs Datarails Vena vs Drivetrain Vena vs Prophix Vena vs Workday Adaptive Planning Datarails vs Google Sheets Google Sheets vs Drivetrain Google Sheets vs Prophix Google Sheets vs Workday Adaptive Planning All twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full financial modeling standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.