# Zoho Expense vs Expensify: which do AI models recommend for expense management, October 2026

Finance AI Recommendation Index, October 2026 Edition, Expense management. Zero of fourteen models named Zoho Expense first on the direct prompt; two named Expensify. Page: https://finance-ai-index.com/spend/expense-management/zoho-expense-vs-expensify/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zoho Expense | 21% | #2 of 11 | 5% | 38 | 14 of 14 |
| Expensify | 10% | #3 of 11 | 17% | 64 | 14 of 14 |

## The direct prompt, model by model

- Kimi K2: expensify first (first choices: Expensify, Ramp) (alternatives: Brex, Emburse)
- MiniMax M2.5: expensify first (first choices: Expensify, Rippling Spend, SAP Concur) (alternatives: Airwallex, BILL Spend & Expense, Navan, Paylocity, Ramp)
- Perplexity Sonar: neither first, one named (first choices: Payhawk) (alternatives: BILL Spend & Expense, Expensify, Procurify, SAP Concur)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: neither first, one named (first choices: Navan) (alternatives: Expensify, Rippling Spend)
- Qwen 3.7 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: Brex, Ramp) (alternatives: BILL Spend & Expense, Expensify, Rydoo)
- GLM 4.7 FlashX: neither first, one named (first choices: Airbase, Ramp) (alternatives: Expensify, Rippling Spend, SAP Concur, Zoho Expense)
- Claude Haiku 4.5: neither named (first choices: Ramp, Spendesk) (alternatives: Airbase, BILL Spend & Expense, Brex, Navan)
- GPT-5.4 mini: neither named (first choices: Rippling Spend) (alternatives: Brex, Navan, Payhawk, Ramp, SAP Concur)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash: neither named (first choices: Ramp) (alternatives: Airbase, Brex, Navan, Rippling Spend)
- Mistral Small: neither named (first choices: Airbase) (alternatives: BILL Spend & Expense, Eco, Ramp)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: neither named (first choices: Airbase, Ramp) (alternatives: Brex, Payhawk)
- Llama 4 Maverick: neither named
- GPT-6 Luna: neither named (first choices: Ramp) (alternatives: Brex, Navan, SAP Concur)
- Muse Glimmer 30B: neither named (first choices: Navan, SAP Concur) (alternatives: Airbase, Paylocity, Rippling Spend, Rydoo)

## What the models said about Zoho Expense

- "Zoho Expense - has poor and slow customer support, glitches, bugs, and performance issues." (Llama 4 Maverick, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "Review pages for tools like Zoho Expense mention pricing complaints from users, especially around subscriptions and minimum billing." (GPT-5.4 mini, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "If you have 3 or fewer users: Go with Zoho Expense's free plan — it's the most generous truly free option with real features." (DeepSeek V4 Flash, budget prompt, first choice)
- "Zoho Expense free tier or Wave free accounting for pure tracking... Zoho Expense at ~$3/user/mo once you outgrow the free tier." (Muse Glimmer 30B, budget prompt, first choice)

## What the models said about Expensify

- "criticized for complex and unintuitive interfaces, unexpected fees, unreliable credit card syncing, and poor customer support" (Mistral Small, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "Came under fire for receipt scanning methodology using third-party ML services... recurring technical and syncing problems" (MiniMax M2.5, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "Expensify | Small to mid-sized businesses, SMBs, distributed teams | $5/user/month ... Simple onboarding, fast expense submission, excellent value for money" (GLM 4.7 FlashX, comparative prompt, first choice)
- "### 1. Expensify (Best All-Rounder) ... Choose Expensify if: You want the safest bet with the widest range of accounting software connections." (Qwen 3.7 Flash, paraphrase prompt, first choice)
- "I'd recommend Expensify as the default choice if you want a strong balance of ease of use, automation, and cost" (Perplexity Sonar, paraphrase prompt, first choice)

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. Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category. Published under CC BY 4.0; the output is the models' output, and nothing here is a recommendation by the index.