Subcategory · AI Citation Index

FP&A

The FP&A category shows clear bifurcation: established enterprise platforms like Anaplan (68% shortlist rate) and Workday (61%) maintain strong positions through comprehensive functionality, while newer entrants Cube and Pigment match their shortlist rates (59% each) with broader model diversity (5 vs 4), suggesting they appeal across more varied use cases. NetSuite's presence (63% shortlist) reflects ERP-native planning's continued relevance, while POINT's lower rate (21%) despite maximum diversity hints at niche specialization. The high consensus brand count (79) against limited evaluation activity (12) indicates a maturing category where buyers know the major players but extensive bake-offs remain uncommon.

179 discovery queries · 290 head-to-heads · refreshed Jul 13, 2026

Discovery stage

The shortlist

Across 179 buyer-style "FP&A" queries

1%24%47%70%93%Coverage — share of discovery prompts where the brand surfaces72%78%84%89%95%Engine diversity

Hover or click a logo to see brand details

X = coverage across discovery prompts · Y = engine diversity · Bubble size = total mentions
Tracked acrossChatGPT,Gemini,Claude

Get weekly AI visibility changes for FP&A sent to your inbox.

Score shifts, new entrants, citation gaps — every Monday.

Signal by intent

By topic

Top 5 most-cited brands per intent cluster. Brands with zero citations in a topic are not shown.

1Workday
8/8
2Cube
8/8
3Anaplan
8/8
4Netsuite
8/8
5Pigment
7/8
1Anaplan
7/7
2Workday
7/7
3Cube
6/7
4Pigment
6/7
5Netsuite
6/7
1Comprehensive
7/7
2Insights
7/7
3Board
7/7
4Microsoft
7/7
5Built
7/7
1Comprehensive
5/5
2Built
5/5
3SAP
4/5
4Workday Adaptive Planning
4/5
5Workday
4/5
1Comprehensive
5/5
2Anaplan
5/5
3Workday Adaptive Planning
5/5
4Insights
5/5
5Planful
5/5
1Anaplan
5/5
2SAP
5/5
3Netsuite
5/5
4Built
5/5
5Workday Adaptive Planning
5/5
1Insights
5/5
2Vena Solutions
5/5
3Cube
5/5
4Planful
5/5
5Anaplan
5/5
1Comprehensive
5/5
2Anaplan
5/5
3Workday Adaptive Planning
5/5
4Plan
5/5
5Adaptive
5/5
≥50% cited
25–49%
<25%
Topics are discovery-stage prompt clusters · fp-a

Evaluation stage

Head-to-head

How often AI cites each brand across uniform category evaluation prompts · median 9/100

0255075100Evaluation citation rate — % of category evaluation prompts citing this brand07132026Evaluation prompts cited inmedian citation ratemedian exposure

Hover or click a logo to see brand details

X = evaluation citation rate · Y = evaluation prompts cited in · Bubble size = citation exposure
Median citation rate 9/100

Each brand's score is the share of category evaluation prompts where AI cited them across all four engines — the same prompt pool for every brand. Brands above the median citation rate have stronger presence in evaluation-stage queries.

Citation sources

Where AI pulls citations from

660 citations captured across FP&A prompt runs.

Vendor pages

319

Product, help, and marketing pages from tracked vendors

Independent sources

199

Reviews, encyclopedias, forums, press — not vendor-owned

Buyer questions

What AI cites for top FP&A questions

Most-cited prompts across the buyer journey. Click any prompt to see the actual URLs AI engines link to.

Discovery

Buyers exploring the category

Evaluation

Buyers comparing options

Want to know if AI cites your brand for FP&A?

Free audit. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude.

Run an audit →

See the full FP&A leaderboard →