Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 6% → 4%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 6% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 6 → 7 of 103
8 categories · RankedCube
365Judge labels
42First choices
47Negative labels
14 / 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
15% in Corporate performance ma for small business buyers
Rank 2 of 77 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
3 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 32 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Cube →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business7 of 106
3%21 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market2 of 77
12%32 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise6 of 125
4%10 labels
accepted challenger
In financial modeling · 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 Cube 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 modeling and scenario planning | Planning and analysis | 12% | 2 of 77 | 0% | 32 | accepted challenger | ▲+2Since September 2026: 11% → 12%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Corporate performance management | Planning and analysis | 8% | 5 of 99 | 5% | 21 | accepted challenger | ▲+5Since September 2026: 5% → 10%, +5 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| FP&A platforms | Planning and analysis | 7% | 4 of 74 | 16% | 51 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 8% → 8%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cash flow forecasting | Treasury and cash | 6% | 6 of 101 | 5% | 21 | accepted challenger | ▲+3Since September 2026: 4% → 7%, +3 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Board and investor reporting | Planning and analysis | 2% | 13 of 99 | 0% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by OnBoard at 26% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Financial consolidation | Accounting and close | 0% | 20 of 102 | 8% | 12 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Financial reporting and dashboards | Planning and analysis | 0% | 22 of 105 | 9% | 11 | accepted challenger | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Financial close management | Accounting and close | 0% | 67 of 85 | 50% | 4 | 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. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Cube held within the floor in all eight categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Financial modeling · by segment
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 11% → 12%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
12%from 11% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 3 → 1 of 75
Enterprise▲+2Since September 2026: 3% → 4%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 3% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 5 → 4 of 111
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate performance ma | 5% | 10% | ▲+5Since September 2026: 5% → 10%, +5 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 5 of 99 |
| Cash flow forecasting | 4% | 7% | ▲+3Since September 2026: 4% → 7%, +3 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 of 101, unchanged |
| Financial reporting | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 9 → 22 of 105 |
| Financial modeling | 11% | 12% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 11% → 12%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 3 → 2 of 77 |
| FP&A platforms | 8% | 8% | =heldSince September 2026: 8% → 8%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 4 of 74 |
| Board | 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 23 → 13 of 99 |
| 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 17 → 20 of 102 |
| 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 40 → 67 of 85 |
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 Cube 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 Cube 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 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 12 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 5 | 13 | 3 | 3 | 24 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 10 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 3 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 18 |
| Mistral Small | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 9 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 2 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 14 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 9 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Kimi K2 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 14 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 13 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 11 |
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
Direct90 labels21
Paraphrase45 labels7
Comparative65 labels18not counted in share
Budget-constrained60 labels12
Scale-constrained60 labels2
Negative45 labels2not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative365 labels in all, every segment counted; 42 of the 62 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.
“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 · Cash flow forecasting · direct prompt · first choice
“Excel/Google Sheets-like interface; quick setup for forecasting/reporting; good for startups/small finance teams avoiding big implementations.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Corporate performance ma · budget prompt · first choice
“Best for: Lean finance teams ($20M–$150M in revenue) looking for rapid implementation... exceptionally fast "time-to-first-forecast"” Gemini 3.5 Flash · FP&A platforms · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Cube is the strongest default recommendation because it is repeatedly positioned as the best small-business FP&A option” Perplexity Sonar · FP&A platforms · budget 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.
“Options to Avoid on a Limited Budget ... Cube — Starts around $1,250–$2,000/month” DeepSeek V4 Flash · FP&A platforms · budget prompt · hard negative
“Spreadsheet-Native or Excel-Based Tools (e.g., ... heavy reliance in Cube, Vena, Datarails): Prone to manual errors” Grok 4.1 Fast · Cash flow forecasting · negative prompt · soft negative
“Instead of paying thousands of dollars a year for heavy-duty enterprise FP&A ... platforms like Jirav or Cube” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Financial reporting · budget prompt · soft negative
“These are usually priced per *user*... For 10+ users, the cost will escalate rapidly” Qwen 3.7 Flash · FP&A platforms · budget prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Cube, over the 365 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cube was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Cube, over the 365 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cube 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 Cube. 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 349 of the 365 answers that named Cube and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
cubesoftware.comYour site200
drivetrain.ai147
datarails.com126
g2.com111
learn.g2.com107
prophix.com96
getaleph.com92
guideflow.com91
golimelight.com80
centage.com73
923 of the 1,123 domain citations in answers naming Cube came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
cubesoftware.com ranks 4 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Cube takes 12% of first choices and Microsoft Excel takes 14%.ShowHide
Search and answers
cubesoftware.com ranks 4 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Cube takes 12% of first choices and Microsoft Excel takes 14%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “modeling tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “financial modeling software”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 90,500 a month (“cube”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 152,613 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 168,764 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 11,525 · 694 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 2,457
- 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 77 in financial modeling
Segment leader
14%
Microsoft Excel
- First choices
- 42 across its categories
- Named in
- 365 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 349 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 cubesoftware.com
703
subdomains included
Content
512
counted in the table below
Documentation
1
Product · Integration
2 · 20
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 316 | 5 | 2026-09-22 | ||
| Comparison | 55 | 0 | 2024-10-22 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 45 | 5 | 2026-09-17 | ||
| News or press | 39 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 26 | 5 | 2026-09-18 | ||
| Case study | 15 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 7 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 6 | 0 | 2025-04-03 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 3 | 0 | 2022-09-06 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-22Accounting to fpa blog
- 2026-09-18From the books to the boardroom a field guide for accountants stepping into fpa report or ebook
- 2026-09-17Vibe coding for finance teams build once trust every number blog
- 2026-09-17Webinar build it yourself a vibe coding workshop with cube september 16 2026 webinar or virtual event
- 2026-08-20The data underneath the model an evening with finance leaders on agentic finance blog
- 2026-08-19Webinar cube summer releases webinar or virtual event
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page cubesoftware.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 Cube
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Cube; a claim can dispute any of them.
Cube Software 19Cube Software (Cube) 1
Follow Cube
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
Cube is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Cube is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Agentic finance layer for FP&A
- For
- finance professionals
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type II compliantSOC 1 & SOC 2 Type 2 CertifiedHIPAA compliantSOC 2 Type IIGDPR-compliant
- Customers named
- PrimerHarnessFahertyPsychemedicsSky RanchOutdoorsyTecovasEdge Fitness Clubs
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, hosting
What Cube's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: cubesoftware.com, cubesoftware.com/pricing, cubesoftware.com/security, cubesoftware.com/platform-overview, cubesoftware.com/customers. 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 Cube'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 Cube, 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 Cube by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Cube 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 Cube, 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 Cube 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 Cube is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideCube is among the products AI models recommend first in Financial modeling and scenario planning 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.