AI Indexes
Finance AI Index
Index › Products › TeamMate · October 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

TeamMate

14Judge labels
0First choices
2Negative labels
11 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
5 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. TeamMate was named 5 times in Internal controls, where FloQast led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In internal controls · 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 TeamMate 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
Internal controls and SOXTax and compliance0%32 of 9020%5under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 25%=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

Movement

Since September 2026, TeamMate held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 10 points.

Best category · Internal controls · by segment

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 87 → 61 of 107
Mid-market=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 30 → 33 of 88
EnterprisenewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 20 of 58, unchanged

All categories · Mid-market

CategorySeptember 2026NowChangeReadingRank
Internal controls0%0%=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.Within noiseRank 30 → 32 of 90

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 TeamMate across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast01001
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash01001
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K200011
GLM 4.7 FlashX00000
MiniMax M2.501001
GPT-6 Luna00000
Muse Glimmer 30B00101

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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase6 labelsNone
Comparative6 labelsNone
Budget-constrained2 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative14 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Strong for audit workflow, but more targeted at audit teams than day-to-day control ownership.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Internal controls · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Excellent for formal internal audit functions” MiniMax M2.5 · Internal controls · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Integrated suite (Audit + Controls + Risk)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Internal controls · comparative prompt · alternative

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.

“Limitations: Rigid reporting (often requires Power BI for ad-hoc reports)” Kimi K2 · Internal controls · comparative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as TeamMate, over the 14 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and TeamMate was named but was not.
ShowHide
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Workiva11 of 140Not among the top eight
AuditBoard9 of 143Not among the top eight
MetricStream9 of 142Not among the top eight
Optro5 of 142Not among the top eight
Diligent One Platform5 of 140Not among the top eight
LogicGate Risk Cloud4 of 140Not among the top eight
ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management4 of 140Not among the top eight
Archer3 of 140Not among the top eight
IBM OpenPages3 of 140Not among the top eight
SAP Process Control3 of 140Not among the top eight
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 TeamMate. 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 14 of the 14 answers that named TeamMate and are not a share of its labels.

Search and answers

Where TeamMate stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates
Searches for its name, Google
27,100 a month (“teammate”)
AI search demand for its name, est.
6,459 a month
Its own site
No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition
Share of first choices
0%
rank 32 of 90 in internal controls
Segment leader
25%
FloQast
First choices
0 across its categories
Named in
14 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 TeamMate

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as TeamMate; a claim can dispute any of them.
TeamMate+ 2TeamMate+ (Wolters Kluwer) 2TeamMate (Wolters Kluwer) 1

Follow TeamMate

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 TeamMate'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 TeamMate, 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 TeamMate by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

  • where TeamMate 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 TeamMate, 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.
The subscriber app

A verification link goes to your work email; an address at the vendor's own domain is approved on the spot, any other is reviewed by hand. Your email is never published. Claiming gives no say over labels, shares, verdicts or which quotes appear.