Small business▲+1Since September 2026: 19% → 20%, +1 point. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
20%from 19% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 3 of 41, unchanged
5 categories · RankedExpensify
256Judge labels
17First choices
69Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
5Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
19% in Expense management for small business buyers
Rank 3 of 54 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
2 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 17% of its 64 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Expensify →By buyer segmentStrongest at small business.
Small business3 of 45
19%65 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market3 of 54
10%64 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise8 of 48
2%39 labels
criticized challenger
In expense management · 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 Expensify 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense management | Spend and procurement | 10% | 3 of 54 | 17% | 64 | accepted challenger | ▲+7Since September 2026: 4% → 11%, +7 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Spend management platforms | Spend and procurement | 0% | 45 of 46 | 47% | 17 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Corporate cards | Spend and procurement | 0% | 20 of 67 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 52% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Business bill pay | Treasury and cash | 0% | 32 of 98 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by BILL at 32% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Telecom expense management | Spend and procurement | 0% | 50 of 89 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Genuity at 19% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Expensify held within the floor in all five categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Expense management · by segment
Mid-market▲+7Since September 2026: 4% → 11%, +7 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
11%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 3 pointsRank 6 → 3 of 46
Enterprise▼−5Since September 2026: 5% → 0%, −5 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 5% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 5 pointsRank 5 → 36 of 39
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense management | 4% | 11% | ▲+7Since September 2026: 4% → 11%, +7 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 3 of 54 |
| Spend management platfor | 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 13 → 45 of 46 |
| Corporate cards | 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 → 20 of 67 |
| Business bill pay | 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 19 → 32 of 98 |
| Telecom expense mgmt | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 50 of 89, 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 Expensify 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 Expensify 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 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 10 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
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
Direct29 labels4
Paraphrase39 labels10
Comparative50 labels9not counted in share
Budget-constrained52 labels2
Scale-constrained34 labels1
Negative52 labels2not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative256 labels in all, every segment counted; 17 of the 28 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.
“Expensify | Small to mid-sized businesses, SMBs, distributed teams | $5/user/month ... Simple onboarding, fast expense submission, excellent value for money” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Expense management · comparative prompt · first choice
“### 1. Expensify (Best All-Rounder) ... Choose Expensify if: You want the safest bet with the widest range of accounting software connections.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Expense management · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend Expensify as the default choice if you want a strong balance of ease of use, automation, and cost” Perplexity Sonar · Expense management · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Expensify - Best overall for flexible, mobile-first expense reporting across small to mid-sized teams.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Expense management · 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.
“"I strongly advise against using Expensify. Cancelling their service is incredibly challenging and time-consuming."..."I have a strong dislike for Expensify and wouldn't suggest using it."” Muse Glimmer 30B · Spend management platfor · negative prompt · hard negative
“Legacy platforms (older versions of SAP Concur, Expensify's legacy product) – Often unmaintained with security vulnerabilities” Kimi K2 · Spend management platfor · negative prompt · hard negative
“criticized for complex and unintuitive interfaces, unexpected fees, unreliable credit card syncing, and poor customer support” Mistral Small · Expense management · negative prompt · hard negative
“Came under fire for receipt scanning methodology using third-party ML services... recurring technical and syncing problems” MiniMax M2.5 · Expense management · negative prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Expensify, over the 256 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Expensify was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Expensify, over the 256 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Expensify 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 Expensify. 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 241 of the 256 answers that named Expensify and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
ramp.com135
bill.com120
g2.com99
ofx.com99
airwallex.com96
brex.com94
use.expensify.comYour site94
emburse.com80
rippling.com74
mercury.com72
869 of the 963 domain citations in answers naming Expensify came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
expensify.com ranks first on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Expensify takes 10% of first choices and Ramp takes 35%.ShowHide
Search and answers
expensify.com ranks first on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Expensify takes 10% of first choices and Ramp takes 35%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “expense management tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “expense management software”
1
- Searches for its name, Google
- 74,000 a month (“expensify”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 932 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 76,291 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 8,060 · 493 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 8,441
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
10%
rank 3 of 54 in expense management
Segment leader
35%
Ramp
- First choices
- 17 across its categories
- Named in
- 256 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 241 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 expensify.com
1,560
subdomains included
Content
338
counted in the table below
Documentation
1,076
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 171 | 4 | 2026-09-21 | ||
| Report or ebook | 130 | 17 | 2026-09-24 | ||
| Case study | 10 | 0 | 2026-01-09 | ||
| Template or tool | 9 | 1 | 2026-07-31 | ||
| Comparison | 6 | 0 | 2026-02-23 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 4 | 0 | 2023-07-13 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 3 | 1 | 2026-07-06 | ||
| Conference or event | 2 | 0 | 2023-12-14 | ||
| News or press | 2 | undated | |||
| Podcast or video | 1 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-24Best expense management software report or ebook
- 2026-09-23Expensify vs quickbooks report or ebook
- 2026-09-21Expensify september 2026 product update blog
- 2026-09-21Free personal finance software report or ebook
- 2026-09-18Ramp vs Brex vs Expensify vs Navan (2026) report or ebook
- 2026-09-17Corporate Credit Card Software Integration: Connect Your Existing Cards to Expensify report or ebook
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page expensify.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 Expensify
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Expensify; a claim can dispute any of them.
Expensify + Partnered Banks 1Expensify/BILL 1
Follow Expensify
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
Expensify is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Expensify is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Spend Management Software for Receipts & Expenses
- For
- employees, employers, and accounting teams
- Price stated
- Expensify is completely free to use as an individual. For companies, plans start at $5 per member. expensify.com
- Starting price
- 5 expensify.com
- Free plan or trial
- free to use as an individual expensify.com
- Integrations claimed
- 45 expensify.com
- Customers named
- Brooklyn NetsRoadtrippersPhilzAprio CloudAmestoAccordCareAviv ClinicsRedmond Accounting
- Not stated on the pages read
- Certifications, hosting
What Expensify's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: expensify.com, trust.expensify.com/controls. 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 Expensify'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 Expensify, 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 Expensify by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Expensify 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 Expensify, 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 Expensify 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 Expensify is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideExpensify is among the products AI models recommend first in Expense management 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.