AI Indexes
Finance AI Index
Index › Tax and compliance › Internal controls › FloQast vs Hyperproof
Internal controls and SOX · October 2026 Edition

FloQast vs Hyperproof

Ten of fourteen models named FloQast first on the direct prompt; zero named Hyperproof. FloQast was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Hyperproof by eight and FloQast carries 28 labels and Hyperproof 14, so the shares are not directly comparable.

FloQast

accepted challenger

Named in ten categories this edition.

Hyperproof

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share25%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate4%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#6A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.
Labels2814A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, FloQast reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.FloQast vs AuditBoard · FloQast vs Sprinto · FloQast vs Onspring

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 Internal controls and SOX page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
FloQastFirst choices, of fourteen modelsHyperproof
Direct100
Paraphrase11
Comparative00
Budget-constrained101 against FloQast
Scale-constrained11
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.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where FloQast and Hyperproof 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
FloQast Hyperproof first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, FloQast on the left and Hyperproof on the right.

The direct prompt

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

FloQast first, Hyperproof an alternative

10 of 14 modelsHyperproof was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Perplexity SonarFloQast alternatives: Netwrix Auditor, Optro, Scytale
Grok 4.1 FastFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, BlackLine
Mistral SmallAuditBoard, FloQast alternatives: Complies.ai, Scytale
DeepSeek V4 FlashFloQast alternatives: BlackLine, Hyperproof, Workiva
Llama 4 MaverickFloQast, Scytale
Qwen 3.7 FlashFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, Scytale
Kimi K2FloQast alternatives: Hyperproof, Onspring, Workiva
GLM 4.7 FlashXFloQast alternatives: Hyperproof, NAVEX One, Onspring, Workiva
MiniMax M2.5FloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, Workiva
Muse Glimmer 30BFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, HighRadius, Hyperproof, Onspring, Scytale

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice alternatives: BlackLine, FloQast, HighRadius, LogicGate Risk Cloud, Scytale
Gemini 3.5 FlashOptro alternatives: FloQast, Pathlock, Scytale, Vanta, Workiva
GPT-6 LunaOptro alternatives: FloQast, Workiva

Neither was named

1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniAuditBoard alternatives: Vanta, Workiva

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.
FloQast8%#4 of 14
Hyperproof8%#3 of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
FloQast leads by twenty-two points.
FloQast25%#1 of 16
Hyperproof4%#6 of 16
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
FloQast2%#– of 11
Hyperproof2%#– of 11
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about FloQast

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

“What to Avoid on a Budget - FloQast \u2014 from about $30,000/year” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Start with FloQast if your SOX controls are embedded in your monthly financial close process and you want the fastest time-to-value” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice

What the models said about Hyperproof

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

“Hyperproof — Solid mid-market option with good balance of features and price” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“My default pick: Hyperproof” GPT-6 Luna · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“consider Hyperproof instead, as it consolidates multiple frameworks into one control library” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · alternative
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.