| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2B payment acceptance | Receivables and billing | 19% | 1 of 94 | 0% | 17 | accepted challenger | ▼−3Since September 2026: 17% → 15%, −3 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Accounts receivable automation | Receivables and billing | 10% | 3 of 79 | 6% | 35 | accepted challenger | ▼−3Since September 2026: 12% → 9%, −3 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cash application | Receivables and billing | 9% | 1 of 83 | 14% | 35 | accepted challenger | ▼−4Since September 2026: 11% → 7%, −4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Chargeback management | Receivables and billing | 6% | 7 of 81 | 0% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by Chargeflow at 24% | |
| Invoicing software | Receivables and billing | 2% | 9 of 71 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Zoho Invoice at 24% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| B2B credit management | Receivables and billing | 0% | 90 of 108 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Chaser at 16% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Business bill pay | Treasury and cash | 0% | 29 of 98 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by BILL at 32% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chargeback management | 0% | 7% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 7% now. | New this edition | Rank 7 of 81, unchanged |
| Cash application | 11% | 7% | ▼−4Since September 2026: 11% → 7%, −4 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 1 of 83 |
| Accounts receivable auto | 12% | 9% | ▼−3Since September 2026: 12% → 9%, −3 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 3 of 79 |
| B2B payment acceptance | 17% | 15% | ▼−3Since September 2026: 17% → 15%, −3 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 1 of 94 |
| Invoicing software | 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 71, unchanged |
| B2B credit management | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 90 of 108, unchanged |
| Business bill 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 22 → 29 of 98 |
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 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 2 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 11 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 11 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 9 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Go with Versapay. Its collaborative portal forces buyers to map payments to invoices directly, cutting out the need for complex manual reconciliation.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Cash application · direct prompt · first choice
“If your primary goal is to make it incredibly easy for your B2B buyers to view, dispute, and pay their invoices, Versapay is the industry standard.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Invoicing software · direct prompt · first choice
“VersaPay and Bill.com are the top choices due to their strong matching capabilities, scalability, and integration options.” Mistral Small · Cash application · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Versapay is a collaborative receivables platform that is best for upper mid-market B2B in the US and Canada” Llama 4 Maverick · Accounts receivable auto · direct prompt · first choice
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 for Your Criteria - Billtrust, Serrala, Esker, Versapay: Custom/transaction-based"” Muse Glimmer 30B · Cash application · negative prompt · hard negative
“Portal dependency ... Integration friction ... Reporting gaps ... Long implementations” Kimi K2 · Accounts receivable auto · negative prompt · hard negative
“generally not recommended for smaller businesses or those outside its target scale” Mistral Small · Cash application · negative prompt · hard negative
“Limitation: Lacks built-in credit management (requires separate solution)” Kimi K2 · B2B credit management · direct 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 207 of the 213 answers that named Versapay and are not a share of its labels.
624 of the 688 domain citations in answers naming Versapay 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.
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 371 | 0 | 2024-10-21 | Cash application, Accounts receivable auto | |
| News or press | 62 | 2 | 2026-09-18 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 24 | 0 | 2024-12-20 | Cash application, Accounts receivable auto | |
| Comparison | 17 | 0 | 2026-03-17 | Cash application, Accounts receivable auto | |
| Glossary or explainer | 16 | 0 | 2024-09-12 | Cash application | |
| Template or tool | 4 | undated | Accounts receivable auto, Cash application | ||
| Podcast or video | 4 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 1 | undated | Accounts receivable auto |
Every page versapay.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.
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 Versapay's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: versapay.com, trust.versapay.com, versapay.com/product/ai, versapay.com/resources/category/case-studies. 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 Versapay'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 Versapay, 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 Versapay by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
AI models recommend Versapay first in B2B payment acceptance 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.
Versapay is among the products AI models recommend first in Accounts receivable automation 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.
AI models recommend Versapay first in Cash application 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.
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.