Small business▲+1Since September 2026: 4% → 5%, +1 point. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
5%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 13 → 8 of 107
1 category · RankedAuditBoard
104Judge labels
23First choices
26Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
23% in Internal controls for enterprise buyers
Rank 2 of 90 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
2 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 24% of its 33 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of AuditBoard →By buyer segmentStrongest at enterprise.
Small business8 of 111
4%25 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market2 of 90
12%33 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise1 of 64
23%44 labels
accepted challenger
In internal controls · 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 AuditBoard 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal controls and SOX | Tax and compliance | 12% | 2 of 90 | 24% | 33 | accepted challenger | ▼−4Since September 2026: 18% → 13%, −4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, AuditBoard held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Internal controls · by segment
Mid-market▼−4Since September 2026: 18% → 13%, −4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
13%from 18% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 6 pointsRank 1 → 2 of 88
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 25% → 25%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
25%from 25% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 1 of 58, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal controls | 18% | 13% | ▼−4Since September 2026: 18% → 13%, −4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 → 2 of 90 |
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 AuditBoard 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 AuditBoard 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 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
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
Direct20 labels6
Paraphrase20 labels10
Comparative21 labels9not counted in share
Budget-constrained17 labels2
Scale-constrained18 labels5
Negative8 labels2not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative104 labels in all, every segment counted; 23 of the 34 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.
“Highly popular for mid-market and scaling pre-IPO/public companies. It is purpose-built for audit, incredibly user-friendly for control owners, and loved by external auditors.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Internal controls · scale prompt · first choice
“Choose AuditBoard if your internal auditors are tired of spreadsheets and need a user-friendly tool to test controls.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Internal controls · comparative prompt · first choice
“the undisputed gold standard for mid-market to enterprise teams managing internal audit, SOX compliance, and risk” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Internal controls · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“offers pre-built templates specifically for Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) readiness, making it popular for CFOs” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Internal controls · comparative prompt · first choice
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.
“What to Avoid on a Budget - AuditBoard/Optro \u2014 custom pricing, typically enterprise-level” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Internal controls · budget prompt · hard negative
“What I'd Avoid for a Mid-Sized B2B Company ... often overkill for mid-market companies” Kimi K2 · Internal controls · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“AuditBoard and Workiva are excellent, but their public materials and category positioning are much more enterprise-oriented” GPT-5.4 mini · Internal controls · budget prompt · soft negative
“expensive suites like AuditBoard/Optro or Workiva may be overkill before you've established basic IT general controls” Kimi K2 · Internal controls · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as AuditBoard, over the 104 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AuditBoard was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as AuditBoard, over the 104 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AuditBoard 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 AuditBoard. 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 94 of the 104 answers that named AuditBoard and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
riskpublishing.com41
riskwatch.com33
worldmetrics.org33
gitnux.org32
zipdo.co31
metricstream.com29
sprinto.com29
optro.ai28
highradius.com27
itechguides.com26
309 of the 309 domain citations in answers naming AuditBoard came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
auditboard.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, AuditBoard takes 12% of first choices and FloQast takes 25%.ShowHide
Search and answers
auditboard.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, AuditBoard takes 12% of first choices and FloQast takes 25%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “internal controls tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “sox compliance software”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 8,100 a month (“auditboard”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 220 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 129 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 38 · 5 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 5,085
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
12%
rank 2 of 90 in internal controls
Segment leader
25%
FloQast
- First choices
- 23 across its categories
- Named in
- 104 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 94 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 auditboard.com
1,956
subdomains included
Content
1,746
counted in the table below
Documentation
2
Product · Integration
24 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 1,222 | undated | |||
| Webinar or virtual event | 292 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 84 | 9 | 2026-09-25 | ||
| Case study | 79 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 26 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 20 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 13 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 8 | undated | |||
| Podcast or video | 2 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-25Vendor sprawl guide report or ebook
- 2026-09-15Risk in focus 2027 north america report or ebook
- 2026-09-09G sib report report or ebook
- 2026-09-08Bcm reality checklist report or ebook
- 2026-08-25Agentic ai playbook for auditors report or ebook
- 2026-08-05Agentic ai report report or ebook
Events in person
Upcoming
- October 12, 2026 to October 14, 2026Infosec World 2026Gaylord Palms, Orlando
- October 13, 2026 to October 15, 2026in-person experienceSan Diego · takes part
- October 13, 2026AI & GRC WorkshopGaylord Pacific Resort, San Diego · takes part
- October 13, 2026 to October 15, 2026CRX (Connected Risk Experience)Gaylord Pacific Resort, San Diego · takes part
- November 10, 2026 to November 11, 2026#RISK Expo Europe 2026ExCeL London, London, U.K.
Last twelve months
- September 28, 2026 to September 29, 2026Gartner Enterprise Risk, Audit and Compliance Conference — EMEALondon, U.K.
- September 27, 2026 to September 29, 2026MBA Compliance and Risk Management ConferenceGrand Hyatt, Washington
- September 15, 2026 to September 16, 2026Gartner Enterprise Risk, Audit and Compliance Conference — AmericasGrapevine
- August 17, 2026 to August 19, 2026GRC Conference 2026 (ISACA and The IIA)Gaylord Pacific Resort and Convention Center, San Diego
As the event pages on auditboard.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page auditboard.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.
Names read as AuditBoard
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as AuditBoard; a claim can dispute any of them.
AuditBoard (Optro) 5AuditBoard (now Optro) 3AuditBoard/Optro 2AuditBoard (SOXHUB) 1AuditBoard (now called Optro) 1
Follow AuditBoard
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
AuditBoard is its own company.ShowHide
The company
AuditBoard is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- AI-Powered GRC Software
- For
- enterprises
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type IISOC 1 Type IICCPAGDPRHECVATCSAHIPAAISO 27001
- Customers named
- PetSmartLennar HomesMarmon HoldingsPopulation Services InternationalEdgewellNVIDIACiscoUber
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, hosting
What AuditBoard's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: auditboard.com, trust.auditboard.com. 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 AuditBoard'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 AuditBoard, 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 AuditBoard by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where AuditBoard 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 AuditBoard, 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.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where AuditBoard is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where AuditBoard is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideAuditBoard is among the products AI models recommend first in Internal controls and SOX this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.