Index › Planning and analysis › FP&A platforms › Abacum vs Centage

FP&A platforms · October 2026 Edition

Abacum vs Centage

Three of fourteen models named Abacum first on the direct prompt; one named Centage. Abacum was named by nine of the fourteen models and Centage by eight and both carry 16 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.

Abacum

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

Centage

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

First-choice share7%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate6%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 18; printed, not drawn.

Labels1616Equal, which is what makes the shares comparable.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Abacum reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Vena was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. Planful vs Abacum · Planful vs Centage · Fathom vs Abacum

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 FP&A platforms page.

By framing

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

AbacumFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCentage

Direct31

Paraphrase10

Comparative00

Budget-constrained001 against Centage

Scale-constrained01

Negative001 against Abacum

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 Abacum and Centage 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

Abacum

Centage

first choice

named as an alternative

argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Abacum on the left and Centage on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Abacum and Centage stood in it.

Abacum first, Centage not the choice

3 of 14 modelsCentage was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

Perplexity SonarAbacum, Planful alternatives: Vena, Workday Adaptive Planning

GLM 4.7 FlashXAbacum, Drivetrain alternatives: Cube, Vena

GPT-6 LunaAbacum alternatives: Planful, Vena

Centage first, Abacum an alternative

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

Mistral SmallCentage alternatives: Abacum, Drivetrain, Planful, Prophix, Vena

Neither was the first choice, one was named

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

Grok 4.1 FastVena alternatives: Centage, Cube, Datarails, Planful

Muse Glimmer 30BPigment alternatives: Abacum, Aleph, Centage, Cube, Datarails, Planful, Vena

Neither was named

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

Claude Haiku 4.5Aleph, Cube alternatives: Pigment, Prophix, Workday Adaptive Planning

GPT-5.4 miniPlanful alternatives: Pigment, Vena

Gemini 3.5 FlashVena alternatives: Aleph, Bob Finance, Cube, Pigment, Planful

DeepSeek V4 FlashDatarails, Drivetrain alternatives: Cube, Jirav, Planful, Prophix, Workday Adaptive Planning

Llama 4 Maverickno first choice

Qwen 3.7 FlashVena alternatives: Aleph, Cube, Planful

Kimi K2Cube alternatives: Aleph, Datarails, Drivetrain, Jirav, Vena

MiniMax M2.5Vena alternatives: Drivetrain, Parse

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

Abacum leads by two points.

Abacum#– of 16

Centage#13 of 16

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Abacum leads by four points.

Abacum#5 of 18

Centage#7 of 18

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

Abacum#– of 14

Centage#– of 14

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Abacum

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

“older versions of Mosaic/Abacum... These replace spreadsheets entirely” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative

“Drivetrain and Abacum stand out for their advanced features, scalability, and ease of implementation” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice

What the models said about Centage

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

“Options to Avoid ... Centage — Starts around $1,750–$2,250/month” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative

“Centage: Ideal for mid-market finance teams with revenues between $25M and $500M.” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice

“Centage – purpose-built for your size range” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice

“Centage and Jirav win at the small end, where the buyer actually gets a published price” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · alternative

Also compared

Planful vs Abacum Planful vs Centage Fathom vs Abacum Fathom vs Centage Vena vs Abacum Vena vs Centage Cube vs Abacum Cube vs Centage Abacum vs Drivetrain Abacum vs Clockwork Drivetrain vs Centage Centage vs Clockwork All twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full FP&A platforms 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.