Small business=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 7 → 8 of 79
3 categories · RankedAleph
42Judge labels
3First choices
2Negative labels
11 / 14Models named it
3Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in FP&A platforms for mid-market buyers
Rank 12 of 74 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
1 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 16 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Aleph →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business10 of 80
2%11 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market12 of 74
2%16 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise35 of 57
0%7 labels
under the label threshold
In fp&a platforms · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named Aleph for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FP&A platforms | Planning and analysis | 2% | 12 of 74 | 0% | 16 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Financial modeling and scenario planning | Planning and analysis | 2% | 18 of 77 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Excel at 14% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Corporate performance management | Planning and analysis | 0% | 51 of 99 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Planful at 22% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Aleph held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · FP&A platforms · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 9 → 11 of 73
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 15 → 34 of 54
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial modeling | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 25 → 18 of 77 |
| FP&A platforms | 2% | 2% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 9 → 12 of 74 |
| Corporate performance ma | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 51 of 99, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 10 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Aleph across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Aleph across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
By framing
Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.
FramingLabels by classFirst choices
Direct9 labels2
Paraphrase2 labelsNone
Comparative13 labels3not counted in share
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained13 labels1
Negative4 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative42 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 6 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Aleph — best for mid-market teams that want enterprise-grade consolidation and AI variance analysis while staying in spreadsheets” Claude Haiku 4.5 · FP&A platforms · direct prompt · first choice
“...wants to keep working in Excel/Google Sheets, but wants a fast setup: Aleph or Cube” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Financial modeling · direct prompt · first choice
“The best AI FP&A tools in 2026 are Aleph (spreadsheet-native, AI-first FP&A)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · FP&A platforms · comparative prompt · first choice
“recommended for mid-market teams that want enterprise-grade consolidation and AI variance analysis while staying in spreadsheets” Muse Glimmer 30B · FP&A platforms · direct prompt · alternative
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
No model argued against it.
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Aleph, over the 42 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Aleph was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Aleph, over the 42 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Aleph was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.
What carried it into the answer
The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Aleph. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 42 of the 42 answers that named Aleph and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
getaleph.comYour site38
cubesoftware.com21
centage.com20
drivetrain.ai20
g2.com17
board.com16
clockwork.ai16
golimelight.com16
learn.g2.com15
resources.rework.com15
156 of the 194 domain citations in answers naming Aleph came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
getaleph.com ranks 3 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Aleph takes 2% of first choices and Planful takes 20%.ShowHide
Search and answers
getaleph.com ranks 3 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Aleph takes 2% of first choices and Planful takes 20%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “fp&a software”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “fp&a platforms”
3
- Searches for its name, Google
- 18,100 a month (“aleph”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 1,663 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 7,310 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 256 · 60 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 564
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 12 of 74 in FP&A platforms
Segment leader
20%
Planful
- First choices
- 3 across its categories
- Named in
- 42 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 42 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on getaleph.com
321
subdomains included
Content
179
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
16 · 2
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 66 | 1 | 2026-07-20 | FP&A platforms | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 58 | 0 | 2025-10-02 | ||
| Case study | 23 | 2 | 2026-09-01 | ||
| Comparison | 16 | 4 | 2026-08-27 | ||
| Podcast or video | 11 | 0 | 2026-05-13 | ||
| Template or tool | 3 | 1 | 2026-08-17 | ||
| Report or ebook | 1 | 0 | 2025-05-20 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 1 | 1 | 2026-07-01 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-01Antelope case study
- 2026-08-27Fpa software vs bi tools comparison
- 2026-08-26Fpa vs cpm vs epm comparison
- 2026-08-17Ai era fractional firm checklist template or tool
- 2026-07-28Haas alert case study
- 2026-07-20Ai adoption compound interest fractional fpa blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page getaleph.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow Aleph
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Aleph is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Aleph is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- AI-native FP&A software & data management for finance
- For
- finance teams
- Price stated
- Free demo / trial available getaleph.com/integrations
- Starting price
- 0 getaleph.com/integrations
- Free plan or trial
- Free demo / trial available getaleph.com
- Integrations claimed
- 150 getaleph.com
- Certifications
- SOC 1 Type IISOC 2 Type II
- Customers named
- ZapierY CombinatorChess.comTuroEnvoyMergeAttivoRooled
- Not stated on the pages read
- Hosting
What Aleph's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: getaleph.com, getaleph.com/platform/security, getaleph.com/platform/ai, getaleph.com/customers, getaleph.com/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Is this your product?
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Aleph's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Aleph, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Aleph by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Aleph is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Aleph, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.