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 36 → 41 of 41
8 categories · RankedSAP Concur
440Judge labels
65First choices
146Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
8Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
68% in Expense management for enterprise buyers
Rank 9 of 54 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
2 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 44% of its 45 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of SAP Concur →By buyer segmentAn enterprise product: leader at enterprise, not named at small business.
Small business45 of 45
0%21 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market9 of 54
4%45 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise1 of 48
68%76 labels
endorsed leader
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 SAP Concur 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 | 4% | 9 of 54 | 44% | 45 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Corporate travel management | Spend and procurement | 0% | 10 of 61 | 27% | 41 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Spend management platforms | Spend and procurement | 0% | 46 of 46 | 56% | 18 | criticized 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% | 45 of 54 | 38% | 13 | 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% | 51 of 67 | 33% | 3 | 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% | 50 of 98 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by BILL at 32% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Accounting software | Accounting and close | 0% | 26 of 55 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 44% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Internal controls and SOX | Tax and compliance | 0% | 57 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, SAP Concur held within the floor in all eight categories: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Expense management · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 9 → 12 of 46
Enterprise▲+5Since September 2026: 66% → 71%, +5 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
71%from 66% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 5 pointsRank 1 of 39, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense management | 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 9 of 54, unchanged |
| Corporate travel managem | 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 60 → 10 of 61 |
| 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 15 → 46 of 46 |
| 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 20 → 45 of 54 |
| 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 35 → 51 of 67 |
| Business bill pay | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 50 of 98, unchanged |
| Accounting software | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 26 of 55, unchanged |
| Internal controls | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 57 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 SAP Concur 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 SAP Concur 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 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 6 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 12 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 12 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 11 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 14 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 10 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 11 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 9 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
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
Direct72 labels21
Paraphrase69 labels26
Comparative100 labels20not counted in share
Budget-constrained47 labels17
Scale-constrained58 labels1
Negative94 labels6not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative440 labels in all, every segment counted; 65 of the 91 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.
“Choose SAP Concur / Navan for large, international B2B with travel + expense integration and strict compliance.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Expense management · direct prompt · first choice
“Industry leader in expense management and compliance... Weakness: Can be complex to implement and manage” MiniMax M2.5 · Corporate travel managem · comparative prompt · first choice
“platforms like TravelPerk and SAP Concur generally receive better reviews for corporate use” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Corporate travel managem · negative prompt · first choice
“Positioned as best overall / best for large enterprises with global compliance.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Corporate travel managem · 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.
“SAP Concur (Avoid if you are an SMB or value user experience)... notorious for having an outdated, non-intuitive interface and slow processing times.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Spend management platfor · negative prompt · hard negative
“SAP Concur is often cited for its outdated architecture and slow processes... clunky user interface... expensive contract fees” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Spend management platfor · negative prompt · hard negative
“Cautions: Slow OCR, rigid workflows, and approver experience issues are common in larger enterprise rollouts.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Expense management · negative prompt · hard negative
“SAP Concur - has an outdated and unintuitive user interface, complex and time-consuming expense submission.” Llama 4 Maverick · Expense management · negative prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as SAP Concur, over the 439 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP Concur was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as SAP Concur, over the 439 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAP Concur 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 SAP Concur. 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 414 of the 439 answers that named SAP Concur and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
ramp.com206
g2.com197
bill.com161
brex.com156
navan.com153
learn.g2.com140
concur.com125
airwallex.com108
emburse.com104
rippling.com99
1,449 of the 1,449 domain citations in answers naming SAP Concur came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
sap.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, SAP Concur takes 4% of first choices and Ramp takes 35%.ShowHide
Search and answers
sap.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, SAP Concur takes 4% 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”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 74,000 a month (“sap concur”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 502 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 2,214,514 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 117,113 · 18,594 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 113,777
- Paid Google search
- 5 searches its ads show for, about 68 clicks and $1,251 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
4%
rank 9 of 54 in expense management
Segment leader
35%
Ramp
- First choices
- 65 across its categories
- Named in
- 439 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 414 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 sap.com
20,663
subdomains included
Content
2,976
counted in the table below
Documentation
1,426
Product · Integration
1,660 · 3,500
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News or press | 1,797 | 92 | 2026-09-28 | ||
| Blog | 677 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 183 | 0 | 2023-08-01 | ||
| Conference or event | 146 | 0 | 2026-05-01 | ||
| Report or ebook | 98 | 0 | 2025-04-01 | ||
| Case study | 29 | 0 | 2023-10-01 | ||
| Comparison | 21 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 13 | undated | |||
| Webinar or virtual event | 10 | undated | |||
| Podcast or video | 2 | 1 | 2026-09-24 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-28Submissions officially open 2027 sap innovation awards news or press
- 2026-09-28Coming soon customer influence feedback experience news or press
- 2026-09-28Sap nvidia openshell auditable ai agents enterprise systems news or press
- 2026-09-28Sap connect 2026 media analyst program news or press
- 2026-09-24Sap apphaus network partner bluestonex builds the bridge news or press
- 2026-09-24Autonomous enterprise podcast lesssons 16 executive conversations podcast or video
Events in person
Upcoming
- April 6, 2027 to April 8, 2027SAP ALM Summit North America 2027SAP America, Inc., Newtown Square, United States · hosts
As the event pages on sap.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page sap.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 SAP Concur
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as SAP Concur; a claim can dispute any of them.
Concur 5Concur Travel 2SAP Concur Travel 2
Follow SAP Concur
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 SAP Concur'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 SAP Concur, 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 SAP Concur by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where SAP Concur 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 SAP Concur, 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.