AI Indexes
Finance AI Index
Index › Planning and analysis › Financial modeling › Vena vs Workday Adaptive Planning
Financial modeling and scenario planning · October 2026 Edition

Vena vs Workday Adaptive Planning

One of fourteen models named Vena first on the direct prompt; two named Workday Adaptive Planning. Vena was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Workday Adaptive Planning by eleven and Vena carries 21 labels and Workday Adaptive Planning 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Vena

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

Workday Adaptive Planning

criticized challenger

Named in seven categories this edition.

First-choice share12%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%35%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#8A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels2117A 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 Workday Adaptive Planning · 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 modelsWorkday Adaptive Planning
Direct121 against Workday Adaptive Planning
Paraphrase512 against Workday Adaptive Planning
Comparative00
Budget-constrained001 against Vena · 2 against Workday Adaptive Planning
Scale-constrained211 against Workday Adaptive Planning
Negative00
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.

Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Vena and Workday Adaptive Planning were named in the same answer 193 times, of the 398 answers naming Vena and the 445 naming Workday Adaptive Planning. In those answers Workday Adaptive Planning took the first choice fifteen times and Vena ten.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Vena and Workday Adaptive Planning stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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 Workday Adaptive Planning first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Vena on the left and Workday Adaptive Planning on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Vena and Workday Adaptive Planning stood in it.

Both were the first choice

1 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.
Qwen 3.7 FlashVena, Workday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Fathom, PlanGuru

Workday Adaptive Planning first, Vena an alternative

1 of 14 modelsVena was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-6 LunaWorkday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Cube, Vena

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
Perplexity SonarDatarails, Limelight alternatives: Abacum, Workday Adaptive Planning
DeepSeek V4 FlashCube alternatives: Datarails, Jirav, Planful, Vena

Neither was named

8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Datarails alternatives: Cube, Drivetrain, Planful, Prophix One
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
Level: the same share of first choices.
Vena0%#– of 10
Workday Adaptive Planning0%#– of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Vena leads by six points.
Vena12%#3 of 14
Workday Adaptive Planning6%#8 of 14
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Workday Adaptive Planning leads at enterprise.
Workday Adaptive Planning16%#2 of 12
Vena0%#9 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 Workday Adaptive Planning

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

“Start by looking closely at Vena or Adaptive. For most mid-market B2B firms, these two provide the perfect balance of power, price, and adoption speed.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“If you want to modernize your tech stack and improve collaboration across departments: Choose Workday Adaptive Planning.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared

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.