Gane Index
All indexesEvery index and its categoriesGTMMarketing, sales, customer and revenue operations softwareITSecurity, IT operations, cloud, developer and data softwareHRHR, payroll, recruiting, performance and learning softwareFinanceAccounting, planning, spend, billing and treasury software
Claim your listing
Index › Finance › Planning and analysis › Financial modeling › Google Sheets vs Cube
Financial modeling and scenario planning · November 2026 Edition

Google Sheets vs Cube

Zero of fourteen models named Google Sheets first on the direct prompt; one named Cube. Google Sheets was named by nine of the fourteen models and Cube by eleven and Google Sheets carries 10 labels and Cube 26, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Google Sheets

accepted challenger

Named in sixteen categories this edition.

Cube

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

First-choice share12%5%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels1026A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Google Sheets reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Datarails was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. Microsoft Excel vs Google Sheets · Microsoft Excel vs Cube · Datarails vs Google Sheets

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the financial modeling and scenario planning page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Google SheetsFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCube
Direct01
Paraphrase02
Comparative00
Budget-constrained70
Scale-constrained00
Negative00
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Google Sheets and Cube stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Google Sheets Cube first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Google Sheets on the left and Cube on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Google Sheets and Cube stood in it.

Cube first, Google Sheets not the choice

1 of 14 modelsGoogle Sheets was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Kimi K2Cube, Datarails alternatives: Drivetrain, Jirav

Neither was the first choice, one was named

8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Datarails alternatives: Cube, Drivetrain, Pigment, Planful
Gemini 3.5 FlashMosaic alternatives: Cube, Datarails, Pigment, Vena, Workday Adaptive Planning
Grok 4.20Datarails alternatives: Cube, Jirav, Quantrix Modeler
Mistral SmallDatarails alternatives: Cube, Limelight, Vena
DeepSeek V4 FlashPigment alternatives: Aleph, Cube, Datarails, Prophix One
Qwen 3.7 FlashDatarails, Limelight alternatives: Aleph, Cube, Jedox, Vena
MiniMax M2.5Workday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Cube, Vena
Muse Glimmer 30BDatarails alternatives: Aleph, Cube, Limelight, Planful, Prophix One, Vena

Neither was named

5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniPigment, Workday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Anaplan, Vena
Perplexity SonarDrivetrain alternatives: Abacum, Datarails, Limelight, Vena
Llama 4 MaverickAleph, Datarails, Limelight
GLM 4.7 FlashXDatarails alternatives: OneStream, Pigment, Planful, Vena
GPT-6 LunaWorkday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Planful, Vena

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Google Sheets leads by eighteen points.
Google Sheets22%#2 of 16
Cube3%#7 of 16
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Google Sheets leads by seven points.
Google Sheets12%#3 of 11
Cube5%#7 of 11
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Google Sheets is not named for this buyer.
Google Sheets—not named
Cube0%#9 of 11
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Google Sheets

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.

“For a truly limited budget, Google Sheets or Excel remains the most cost-effective choice.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Absolute limited budget → Excel/Google Sheets + free templates such as EasyFinancialModels” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“For a truly limited budget, start with Google Sheets or Excel with free templates” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Cube

No label in this category carried a quote.

Also compared
Microsoft Excel vs Google SheetsMicrosoft Excel vs CubeDatarails vs Google SheetsDatarails vs CubeGoogle Sheets vs PigmentGoogle Sheets vs Workday Adaptive PlanningGoogle Sheets vs Prophix OneGoogle Sheets vs VenaPigment vs CubeWorkday Adaptive Planning vs CubeProphix One vs CubeCube vs VenaAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full financial modeling standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.