Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 8% → 6%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
6%from 8% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 5 of 51, unchanged
Oracle · 20 categories · RankedOracle NetSuite
555Judge labels
79First choices
154Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
20Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
39% in ERP systems for mid-market buyers
Rank 1 of 73 in the mid-market standingendorsed leader
12 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 11% of its 55 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Oracle NetSuite →By buyer segmentA mid-market product: leader at mid-market, not named at enterprise.
Small business5 of 56
5%57 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market1 of 73
39%55 labels
endorsed leader
Enterprise11 of 47
0%35 labels
criticized challenger
In erp systems · 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 Oracle NetSuite 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERP systems | Accounting and close | 39% | 1 of 73 | 11% | 55 | endorsed leader | =heldSince September 2026: 38% → 39%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Accounting software | Accounting and close | 21% | 2 of 55 | 10% | 49 | accepted challenger | ▲+5Since September 2026: 15% → 20%, +5 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Financial consolidation | Accounting and close | 9% | 5 of 102 | 13% | 15 | accepted challenger | ▲+4Since September 2026: 5% → 9%, +4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Fixed asset accounting | Accounting and close | 2% | 12 of 107 | 31% | 16 | criticized challenger | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Financial reporting and dashboards | Planning and analysis | 2% | 11 of 105 | 14% | 14 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| AI accounting assistants | Accounting and close | 0% | 20 of 85 | 6% | 17 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Revenue recognition | Accounting and close | 0% | 60 of 77 | 46% | 13 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Account reconciliation | Accounting and close | 0% | 17 of 82 | 0% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 33% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cash application | Receivables and billing | 0% | 71 of 83 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Versapay at 9% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Corporate performance management | Planning and analysis | 0% | 78 of 99 | 33% | 3 | 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. |
| Cash flow forecasting | Treasury and cash | 0% | 86 of 101 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Agicap at 13% | =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% | 68 of 85 | 50% | 2 | 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. |
| Procure-to-pay | Spend and procurement | 0% | 41 of 87 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Procurify at 42% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Supplier management | Spend and procurement | 0% | 93 of 111 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Precoro at 14% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Accounts payable automation | Spend and procurement | 0% | 32 of 54 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Ramp at 22% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| FP&A platforms | Planning and analysis | 0% | 67 of 74 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Planful at 20% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Global e-invoicing compliance | Tax and compliance | 0% | 103 of 136 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Avalara E-Invoicing at 25% | |
| Lease accounting | Accounting and close | 0% | 52 of 71 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by FinQuery at 29% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Professional services automation | Receivables and billing | 0% | 87 of 99 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by BigTime at 29% | |
| Transfer pricing | Tax and compliance | 0% | 51 of 101 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by TPGenie at 30% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Oracle NetSuite held within the floor in all twenty categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · ERP systems · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 38% → 39%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
39%from 38% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 1 of 63, unchanged
Enterprise▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 7 → 8 of 41
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accounting software | 15% | 20% | ▲+5Since September 2026: 15% → 20%, +5 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 3 → 2 of 55 |
| Financial consolidation | 5% | 9% | ▲+4Since September 2026: 5% → 9%, +4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 5 of 102, unchanged |
| Fixed asset accounting | 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 25 → 12 of 107 |
| ERP systems | 38% | 39% | =heldSince September 2026: 38% → 39%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 73, unchanged |
| Financial reporting | 2% | 2% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 10 → 11 of 105 |
| AI accounting assistants | 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 20 of 85, unchanged |
| Revenue recognition | 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 72 → 60 of 77 |
| Account reconciliation | 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 → 17 of 82 |
| Cash application | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 71 of 83, unchanged |
| 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 76 → 78 of 99 |
| Cash flow forecasting | 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 69 → 86 of 101 |
| 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 51 → 68 of 85 |
| Procure-to-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 27 → 41 of 87 |
| Supplier management | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 93 of 111, unchanged |
| Accounts payable automat | 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 → 32 of 54 |
| FP&A platforms | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 67 of 74, unchanged |
| Global e-invoicing compl | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 103 of 136, unchanged |
| Lease accounting | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 52 of 71, unchanged |
| PSA | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 87 of 99, unchanged |
| Transfer pricing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 51 of 101, 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 Oracle NetSuite 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 Oracle NetSuite 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 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 12 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 8 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 2 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 17 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 20 |
| Mistral Small | 3 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 14 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 17 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 9 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 2 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 24 |
| Kimi K2 | 4 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 18 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 15 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 17 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 12 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 16 |
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
Direct130 labels44
Paraphrase98 labels21
Comparative92 labels6not counted in share
Budget-constrained52 labels7
Scale-constrained67 labels7
Negative116 labels7not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative555 labels in all, every segment counted; 79 of the 92 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.
“NetSuite is the market's default ERP-grade ledger: multi-entity consolidation, multiple currencies, and revenue recognition rules running under one system” Muse Glimmer 30B · Accounting software · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I'd start with NetSuite if you prioritize growth and operational breadth, or Sage Intacct if financial sophistication and reporting are paramount.” Kimi K2 · ERP systems · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“NetSuite and SAP Business One are the most popular and highly rated due to their scalability, industry fit, and comprehensive features.” Mistral Small · ERP systems · direct prompt · first choice
“Top contenders: NetSuite (scalable ERP)... *Tip*: If expanding, choose ERP finance modules (e.g., NetSuite) over standalone accounting.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Accounting software · scale 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.
“Avoid: ERP-Native Modules (For Complex Matching) ... built-in cash application tools provided by your ERP (like basic NetSuite, Microsoft Dynamics, or SAP modules)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Cash application · negative prompt · hard negative
“avoiding expensive enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms (like NetSuite or Sage Intacct, which can cost $10,000 to over $100,000 annually)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Revenue recognition · budget prompt · hard negative
“Who should avoid it: Small businesses, startups, and organizations that don't need enterprise-level ERP capabilities.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Accounting software · negative prompt · hard negative
“They are not recommended for enterprises seeking comprehensive asset tracking and depreciation capabilities.” Mistral Small · Fixed asset accounting · negative prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Oracle NetSuite, over the 554 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Oracle NetSuite was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Oracle NetSuite, over the 554 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Oracle NetSuite 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 Oracle NetSuite. 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 489 of the 554 answers that named Oracle NetSuite and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
erpresearch.com174
ramp.com127
randgroup.com98
g2.com90
netsuite.com88
forbes.com77
worldmetrics.org71
gitnux.org69
guideflow.com69
softwareconnect.com68
931 of the 931 domain citations in answers naming Oracle NetSuite came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where Oracle NetSuite stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where Oracle NetSuite stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 9,900 a month (“oracle netsuite”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 280 a month
- Its own site
- It sits on Oracle's site (oracle.com), so there are no site figures for it alone
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
39%
rank 1 of 73 in ERP systems
First choices
79
across its categories
- Named in
- 554 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 489 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 Oracle NetSuite
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Oracle NetSuite; a claim can dispute any of them.
NetSuite 97NetSuite (Oracle) 5Oracle NetSuite OneWorld 3NetSuite OneWorld 2NetSuite (ARM - Advanced Revenue Management) 1NetSuite (NetSuite Revenue Management) 1NetSuite (native Fixed Assets) 1NetSuite (via SuitesQL or Apps) 1Oracle Fusion Cloud ERP / NetSuite 1Oracle NetSuite (OneWorld) 1Oracle NetSuite / SAP S/4HANA 1Oracle NetSuite/Fusion 1Oracle Netsuite / Oracle Cloud EPM 1
Follow Oracle NetSuite
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
Oracle is the company behind Oracle NetSuite.ShowHide
The company
Oracle is the company behind Oracle NetSuite.
ShowHideOn record
Company recordsIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Oracle NetSuite has a consistent contract model for all programs and services globally.
- For
- your order of the NetSuite Cloud Services
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What Oracle NetSuite's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: oracle.com/ae/contracts/netsuite, oracle.com/apac/contracts/netsuite, oracle.com/asean/contracts/netsuite, oracle.com/africa/contracts/netsuite, oracle.com/europe/contracts/netsuite. 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 Oracle NetSuite'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 Oracle NetSuite, 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 Oracle NetSuite by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Oracle NetSuite 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 Oracle NetSuite, 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 Oracle NetSuite 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 Oracle NetSuite is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideERP systems
AI models recommend Oracle NetSuite first in ERP systems 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
Accounting software
Oracle NetSuite is among the products AI models recommend first in Accounting software 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.