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 14 → 13 of 103
Microsoft Power BI
184Judge labels
16First choices
48Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
7Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
22% in Financial reporting for enterprise buyers
Rank 4 of 105 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 12% of its 33 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Microsoft Power BI →By buyer segmentStrongest at enterprise.
Small business13 of 105
0%27 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market4 of 105
7%33 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise1 of 109
22%45 labels
accepted challenger
In financial reporting · 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 Microsoft Power BI 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 reporting and dashboards | Planning and analysis | 7% | 4 of 105 | 12% | 33 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 4% → 4%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| SaaS metrics and analytics | Planning and analysis | 0% | 66 of 78 | 38% | 13 | criticized challenger | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Board and investor reporting | Planning and analysis | 0% | 84 of 99 | 40% | 5 | 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. |
| Corporate performance management | Planning and analysis | 0% | 44 of 99 | 0% | 2 | 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. |
| ESG and carbon reporting | Equity and corporate | 0% | 85 of 110 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Greenly at 36% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| FP&A platforms | Planning and analysis | 0% | 51 of 74 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Planful at 20% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Internal controls and SOX | Tax and compliance | 0% | 48 of 90 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 25% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Microsoft Power BI held within the floor in all seven categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Financial reporting · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 4% → 4%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 6 → 4 of 102
Enterprise▼−1Since September 2026: 19% → 18%, −1 point. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
18%from 19% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 1 of 101, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SaaS metrics | 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 6 → 66 of 78 |
| Financial reporting | 4% | 4% | =heldSince September 2026: 4% → 4%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 4 of 105 |
| 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 76 → 84 of 99 |
| 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 63 → 44 of 99 |
| ESG and carbon reporting | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 85 of 110, unchanged |
| FP&A platforms | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 51 of 74, unchanged |
| Internal controls | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 48 of 90, 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 Microsoft Power BI 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 Microsoft Power BI 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
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
Direct18 labels1
Paraphrase31 labels11
Comparative53 labels20not counted in share
Budget-constrained19 labels4
Scale-constrained10 labelsNone
Negative53 labels2not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative184 labels in all, every segment counted; 16 of the 38 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.
“Dominant in adoption; excels in ecosystem integration... reviews note Power BI/Tableau as most adopted for versatility” Grok 4.1 Fast · Financial reporting · comparative prompt · first choice
“Choose Power BI if you want value, strong Excel integration, and have a mix of technical and non-technical users.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Financial reporting · comparative prompt · first choice
“Power BI or Tableau tend to be the sweet spot—offering good functionality, reasonable learning curves” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Financial reporting · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Power BI or Tableau would be the most versatile choices, with Power BI being more cost-effective” MiniMax M2.5 · Financial reporting · paraphrase 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: Live, raw business intelligence (BI) tools like Power BI, Tableau, or complex, multi-tab Excel sheets presented live.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Board · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid generic BI tools unless you have a dedicated data team” Qwen 3.7 Flash · SaaS metrics · negative prompt · hard negative
“Bottom line: Avoid for everyday SaaS metrics.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · SaaS metrics · negative prompt · hard negative
“Power BI can support external sharing, but it depends on tenant settings, identities, and permissions... Test your exact director and guest-user setup before relying on it for confidential reporting.” GPT-6 Luna · Board · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Microsoft Power BI, over the 182 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Microsoft Power BI was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Microsoft Power BI, over the 182 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Microsoft Power BI 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 Microsoft Power BI. 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 166 of the 182 answers that named Microsoft Power BI and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
worldmetrics.org41
databox.com37
baremetrics.com33
g2.com31
kanerika.com26
designrevision.com23
finance-ai-index.com23
guideflow.com23
improvado.io23
zoho.com23
No domain is on file for Microsoft Power BI, so its own site is not marked.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where Microsoft Power BI stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where Microsoft Power BI stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 14,800 a month (“microsoft power bi”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 515 a month
- Its own site
- No site of its own on file, so no site figures
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
7%
rank 4 of 105 in financial reporting
Segment leader
33%
Sage Intacct
- First choices
- 16 across its categories
- Named in
- 182 answers
- Its own site cited
- No site on file to match
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 Microsoft Power BI
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Microsoft Power BI; a claim can dispute any of them.
Power BI 33PowerBI 2Microsoft Power BI (with Microsoft Fabric) 1Microsoft Power BI + Planning (formerly Solver) 1
Follow Microsoft Power BI
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.
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 Microsoft Power BI'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 Microsoft Power BI, 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 Microsoft Power BI by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Microsoft Power BI 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 Microsoft Power BI, 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.