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 78 → 79 of 82
9 categories · RankedEsker
208Judge labels
3First choices
47Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
9Categories
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 Cash application for mid-market buyers
Rank 13 of 83 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 23% of its 22 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Esker →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business85 of 88
0%19 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market13 of 83
2%22 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise14 of 62
0%33 labels
criticized challenger
In cash application · 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 Esker 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash application | Receivables and billing | 2% | 13 of 83 | 23% | 22 | accepted challenger | ▼−4Since September 2026: 7% → 2%, −4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Global e-invoicing compliance | Tax and compliance | 2% | 16 of 136 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Avalara E-Invoicing at 25% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| B2B credit management | Receivables and billing | 0% | 20 of 108 | 0% | 16 | accepted challenger | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Accounts receivable automation | Receivables and billing | 0% | 20 of 79 | 9% | 11 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Accounts payable automation | Spend and procurement | 0% | 26 of 54 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 22% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Chargeback management | Receivables and billing | 0% | 28 of 81 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Chargeflow at 24% | |
| Business bill pay | Treasury and cash | 0% | 40 of 98 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by BILL at 32% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Procure-to-pay | Spend and procurement | 0% | 49 of 87 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Procurify at 42% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Strategic sourcing | Spend and procurement | 0% | 77 of 128 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by oboloo at 15% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Esker held within the floor in all nine categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Cash application · by segment
Mid-market▼−4Since September 2026: 7% → 2%, −4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 7% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 6 pointsRank 6 → 12 of 79
Enterprise▼−3Since September 2026: 3% → 0%, −3 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 3% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 7 → 12 of 58
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash application | 7% | 2% | ▼−4Since September 2026: 7% → 2%, −4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 13 of 83 |
| Global e-invoicing compl | 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 37 → 16 of 136 |
| B2B credit management | 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 13 → 20 of 108 |
| Accounts receivable auto | 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 22 → 20 of 79 |
| Accounts payable automat | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 26 of 54, unchanged |
| Chargeback management | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 28 of 81, unchanged |
| Business bill pay | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 40 of 98, unchanged |
| Procure-to-pay | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 49 of 87, unchanged |
| Strategic sourcing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 77 of 128, 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 Esker 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 Esker 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 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 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
Direct44 labels1
Paraphrase32 labels1
Comparative64 labels2not counted in share
Budget-constrained16 labelsNone
Scale-constrained16 labels1
Negative36 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative208 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 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.
“Mid-market options (Esker, Versapay, Quadient AR, Billtrust) may deliver 90% of the value at a fraction of the cost... Strong mid-market fit” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Cash application · scale prompt · first choice
“Enterprise scale + AI depth → HighRadius or Esker” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Accounts receivable auto · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with Coupa or Esker” Kimi K2 · Global e-invoicing compl · direct prompt · first choice
“If you have exceptionally document-heavy or multi-national billing operations ... these tools offer highly capable, SaaS-native AI matchers” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Cash application · 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.
“"Avoid for Your Criteria - Billtrust, Serrala, Esker, Versapay: Custom/transaction-based"” Muse Glimmer 30B · Cash application · negative prompt · hard negative
“It is often recommended to avoid unless your payment volume justifies the cost” Mistral Small · Cash application · negative prompt · hard negative
“underperforms with variable billing, unstructured remittances, and non-standard invoice layouts common in mid-market companies” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Cash application · negative prompt · soft negative
“Enterprise-heavy platforms (Esker, Emagia, BlackLine, Billtrust) — for Small Businesses ... often overkill for SMBs” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Accounts receivable auto · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Esker, over the 208 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Esker was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Esker, over the 208 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Esker 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 Esker. 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 207 of the 208 answers that named Esker and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
highradius.com143
chaserhq.com85
worldmetrics.org72
esker.comYour site67
emagia.com63
bluecopa.com62
gitnux.org57
finance-ai-index.com53
g2.com46
stuut.ai46
627 of the 694 domain citations in answers naming Esker came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
esker.com ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Esker takes 2% of first choices and Versapay takes 9%.ShowHide
Search and answers
esker.com ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Esker takes 2% of first choices and Versapay takes 9%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “cash application tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “cash application software”
2
- Searches for its name, Google
- 12,100 a month (“esker”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 383 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 12,337 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 1,460 · 186 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 3,807
- 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 13 of 83 in cash application
Segment leader
9%
Versapay
- First choices
- 3 across its categories
- Named in
- 208 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 207 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 esker.com
393
subdomains included
Content
373
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 171 | 16 | 2026-09-22 | Cash application, Supplier management | |
| News or press | 58 | 5 | 2026-09-24 | Cash application, Accounts payable automat | |
| Case study | 48 | 15 | 2026-09-21 | Procure-to-pay | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 44 | 11 | 2026-09-16 | Accounts payable automat | |
| Report or ebook | 37 | 4 | 2026-09-24 | Cash application | |
| Podcast or video | 8 | 0 | 2025-06-27 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 3 | 3 | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Comparison | 2 | 1 | 2026-09-02 | ||
| Conference or event | 1 | 0 | 2024-10-18 | ||
| Template or tool | 1 | 0 | 2026-04-27 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-24New esker research finds finance leaders want more proof and control giving news or press
- 2026-09-242026 global finance ai trust index report or ebook
- 2026-09-22Accounts receivable debit or credit blog
- 2026-09-212026 global finance ai trust index report or ebook
- 2026-09-21Algeco case study
- 2026-09-16Cs om 5 ai ways to modernize b2b order journey webinar or virtual event
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page esker.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 Esker
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Esker; a claim can dispute any of them.
Emagia / Esker 1Esker (Quadient) 1
Follow Esker
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
Esker is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Esker is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Automation Software For Source-to-Pay and Order-to-Cash
- For
- the Office of the CFO
- Free plan or trial
- Schedule your free demo with a member of our Sales team esker.com
- Integrations claimed
- 70 esker.com
- Customers named
- NVIDIATrekLennox
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, certifications, hosting
What Esker's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: esker.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 Esker'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 Esker, 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 Esker by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Esker 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 Esker, 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.