| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Account reconciliation | Accounting and close | 0% | 16 of 82 | 0% | 10 | accepted challenger | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cash flow forecasting | Treasury and cash | 0% | 32 of 101 | 17% | 6 | 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. |
| Lease accounting | Accounting and close | 0% | 29 of 71 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by FinQuery at 29% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Financial modeling and scenario planning | Planning and analysis | 0% | 39 of 77 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Excel at 14% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Account reconciliation | 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 → 16 of 82 |
| 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 78 → 32 of 101 |
| Lease accounting | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 29 of 71, unchanged |
| Financial modeling | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 39 of 77, 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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Prophix One serves mid-market to enterprise organizations requiring robust, scalable FP&A capabilities” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Financial modeling · direct prompt · alternative
“Prophix One is best for mid-market teams that want reconciliation tied to close and consolidation” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Account reconciliation · direct prompt · alternative
“Positioned for mid-market teams that want reconciliation tied to close and consolidation” Perplexity Sonar · Account reconciliation · direct prompt · alternative
“Offers robust cash flow forecasting with automation and integration from source systems” Mistral Small · Cash flow forecasting · direct prompt · alternative
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.
“Be cautious of: Broad enterprise platforms like Anaplan, Workday Adaptive Planning, Prophix” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Cash flow forecasting · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 42 of the 42 answers that named Prophix One and are not a share of its labels.
127 of the 164 domain citations in answers naming Prophix One came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
What Prophix One's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: de.prophix.com/warum-prophix, de.prophix.com/prophix-one-demo-center, de.prophix.com/author/prophix, community.prophix.com/resources/post/prophix-one-fp-a---immediate-wins-and-the-road-ahead-s5doh0nzvsybj5o, community.prophix.com/resources/post/a-new-era-of-cash-planning-with-prophix-one-cash-management-MnSmCRtmwoB02CO. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Prophix One'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 Prophix One, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Prophix One by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: