AI Indexes
Finance AI Index
Index › Treasury and cash › Cash flow forecasting › Cube vs Kyriba
Cash flow forecasting · October 2026 Edition

Cube vs Kyriba

Three of fourteen models named Cube first on the direct prompt; zero named Kyriba. Cube was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Kyriba by eleven and Cube carries 21 labels and Kyriba 22, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Cube

accepted challenger

Named in eight categories this edition.

Kyriba

criticized challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share6%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%27%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#8A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels2122A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Cube reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Chaser was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. Agicap vs Cube · Agicap vs Kyriba · Float vs Cube

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 cash flow forecasting page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
CubeFirst choices, of fourteen modelsKyriba
Direct301 against Kyriba
Paraphrase024 against Kyriba
Comparative01
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained001 against Kyriba
Negative001 against Cube
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 Cube and Kyriba 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
Cube Kyriba first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Cube on the left and Kyriba on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Cube first, Kyriba not the choice

3 of 14 modelsKyriba was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Mistral SmallChaser, Cube alternatives: Prophix One, Tesorio
Llama 4 MaverickCube
GLM 4.7 FlashXCube alternatives: Abacum, HighRadius

Neither was the first choice, one was named

7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Upflow alternatives: Abacum, Chaser, Cube, Tesorio
GPT-5.4 miniAgicap alternatives: Datarails, Kyriba, Vena
Gemini 3.5 FlashTesorio alternatives: Agicap, Centime, Cube, Nilus, Trovata
Perplexity SonarAgicap alternatives: Chaser, Cube, Upflow
Qwen 3.7 FlashAgicap alternatives: Chaser, Cube, Tesorio
Kimi K2Chaser alternatives: Abacum, Cube, Fathom, Upflow
GPT-6 LunaCentime alternatives: Cube, Jirav, Planful, Tesorio

Neither was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Grok 4.1 FastChaser alternatives: Drivetrain, Float, Jirav
DeepSeek V4 FlashTesorio alternatives: Agicap, Chaser, Float, Vena
MiniMax M2.5Upflow alternatives: Chaser, Drivetrain, Vena
Muse Glimmer 30BTesorio, Upflow alternatives: Abacum, Float, 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.
Cube0%#– of 12
Kyriba0%#– of 12
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Cube leads by two points.
Cube6%#6 of 15
Kyriba4%#8 of 15
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Kyriba leads at enterprise.
Kyriba24%#1 of 12
Cube0%#– of 12
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Cube

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

“Spreadsheet-Native or Excel-Based Tools (e.g., ... heavy reliance in Cube, Vena, Datarails): Prone to manual errors” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“Best for mid-market finance teams ($10M–$300M revenue) that run planning in spreadsheets and want structure, automation, and AI analysis layered on top” Llama 4 Maverick · direct prompt · first choice

What the models said about Kyriba

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

“I recommend Kyriba for a mid-sized B2B company looking for comprehensive cash management solutions.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · 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.