Small business=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 69 → 90 of 96
8 categories · RankedCCH Tagetik
134Judge labels
2First choices
22Negative labels
13 / 14Models named it
8Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
4% in Financial consolidation for enterprise buyers
Rank 27 of 102 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 23% of its 13 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of CCH Tagetik →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business89 of 100
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market27 of 102
0%13 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise3 of 82
4%32 labels
accepted challenger
In financial consolidation · 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 CCH Tagetik 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial consolidation | Accounting and close | 0% | 27 of 102 | 23% | 13 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Corporate performance management | Planning and analysis | 0% | 21 of 99 | 0% | 9 | under 10 labels · led by Planful at 22% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Financial close management | Accounting and close | 0% | 21 of 85 | 17% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 55% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Transfer pricing | Tax and compliance | 0% | 34 of 101 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by TPGenie at 30% | |
| SEC and disclosure reporting | Accounting and close | 0% | 54 of 63 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Workiva at 32% | |
| Account reconciliation | Accounting and close | 0% | 60 of 82 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 33% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| FP&A platforms | Planning and analysis | 0% | 47 of 74 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Planful at 20% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Lease accounting | Accounting and close | 0% | 45 of 71 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by FinQuery at 29% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, CCH Tagetik held within the floor in all eight categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Financial consolidation · by segment
Mid-market=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 21 → 26 of 99
Enterprise▲+5Since September 2026: 0% → 5%, +5 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
5%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 5 pointsRank 8 → 3 of 75
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial consolidation | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 21 → 27 of 102 |
| Corporate performance ma | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 25 → 21 of 99 |
| Financial close manageme | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 36 → 21 of 85 |
| Transfer pricing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 34 of 101, unchanged |
| Disclosure reporting | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 54 of 63, unchanged |
| Account reconciliation | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 60 of 82, unchanged |
| FP&A platforms | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 28 → 47 of 74 |
| Lease accounting | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 27 → 45 of 71 |
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 CCH Tagetik 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 CCH Tagetik 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 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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
Direct22 labels1
Paraphrase13 labelsNone
Comparative51 labels2not counted in share
Budget-constrained17 labels1
Scale-constrained15 labelsNone
Negative16 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative134 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 5 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.
“Choose ONESOURCE or Tagetik if you are looking to overhaul your entire tax function” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Transfer pricing · comparative prompt · first choice
“Choose OneStream or CCH Tagetik if your primary headache is ... complex multi-entity consolidation” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Financial close manageme · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best for: Companies wanting disclosure management + consolidation on one platform” MiniMax M2.5 · Disclosure reporting · comparative prompt · alternative
“Embedded with financial close/consolidation; best if you want TP unified with finance” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Transfer pricing · scale 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.
“the best choice is usually not the big enterprise close suites like BlackLine or CCH Tagetik” GPT-5.4 mini · Financial close manageme · budget prompt · hard negative
“Avoid "EPM-Attached" Disclosure Modules (Unless Already Fully Committed)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Disclosure reporting · negative prompt · hard negative
“Large enterprise systems (like SAP modules or CCH Tagetik) can take 6 to 12 months to implement and require heavy IT involvement.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Transfer pricing · scale prompt · soft negative
“is usually out of the question, as they typically require tens of thousands of dollars in annual licensing” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Financial consolidation · budget prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CCH Tagetik, over the 134 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CCH Tagetik was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CCH Tagetik, over the 134 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CCH Tagetik 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 CCH Tagetik. 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 131 of the 134 answers that named CCH Tagetik and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
prophix.com56
onestream.com47
maxima.ai45
learn.g2.com42
cfoshortlist.com40
g2.com38
highradius.com35
bluecopa.com33
guideflow.com32
wolterskluwer.comYour site32
368 of the 400 domain citations in answers naming CCH Tagetik came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
wolterskluwer.com ranks 5 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, CCH Tagetik takes 0% of first choices and Prophix takes 24%.ShowHide
Search and answers
wolterskluwer.com ranks 5 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, CCH Tagetik takes 0% of first choices and Prophix takes 24%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “consolidation tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “financial consolidation software”
5
- Searches for its name, Google
- 390 a month (“cch tagetik”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 2,373,906 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 117,664 · 13,778 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 46,626
- Paid Google search
- 19 searches its ads show for, about 1,183 clicks and $15,481 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 27 of 102 in financial consolidation
Segment leader
24%
Prophix
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 134 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 131 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.
Names read as CCH Tagetik
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as CCH Tagetik; a claim can dispute any of them.
CCH Tagetik (Wolters Kluwer) 2Tagetik 2Wolters Kluwer CCH Tagetik 2CCH Tagetik (by Wolters Kluwer) 1Wolters Kluwer CCH Tagetik (Operational Transfer Pricing) 1
Follow CCH Tagetik
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
CCH Tagetik is its own company.ShowHide
The company
CCH Tagetik is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Unified performance management software
- Not stated on the pages read
- Who it is for, price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What CCH Tagetik's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: wolterskluwer.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 CCH Tagetik'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 CCH Tagetik, 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 CCH Tagetik by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where CCH Tagetik 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 CCH Tagetik, 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.