| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Board portals | Equity and corporate | 4% | 5 of 50 | 0% | 12 | accepted challenger | |
| Board and investor reporting | Planning and analysis | 0% | 21 of 99 | 0% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by OnBoard at 26% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“the current consensus points to Aprio as the best overall balance of value, usability, and support” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Board portals · direct prompt · first choice
“Prioritize portals with verified trust centers (e.g., Aprio, Ideals Board)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Board portals · negative prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with Aprio or OnBoard” MiniMax M2.5 · Board portals · direct prompt · first choice
“The top-tier choice for mid-market firms seeking 'Concierge-level' support without enterprise pricing.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Board portals · direct prompt · alternative
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.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 44 of the 49 answers that named Aprio Board Portal and are not a share of its labels.
188 of the 207 domain citations in answers naming Aprio Board Portal came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
What Aprio Board Portal's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: aprioboardportal.com/board-portal-software, aprioboardportal.com/board-portal-features, aprioboardportal.com/board-portal-compliance, meetings.aprioboardportal.com/board-software, aprioboardportal.com/board-portal-free-trial. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Aprio Board Portal'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 Aprio Board Portal, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Aprio Board Portal by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: