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 › FP&A platforms › Aleph vs Jirav
FP&A platforms · November 2026 Edition

Aleph vs Jirav

Three of fourteen models named Aleph first on the direct prompt; zero named Jirav. Aleph was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Jirav by ten and Aleph carries 25 labels and Jirav 16, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Aleph

accepted challenger

Named in five categories this edition.

Jirav

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

First-choice share9%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%19%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#8A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels2516A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Aleph reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Prophix was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Pigment vs Aleph · Pigment vs Jirav · Prophix vs Aleph

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 FP&A platforms page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AlephFirst choices, of fourteen modelsJirav
Direct30
Paraphrase10
Comparative00
Budget-constrained012 against Jirav
Scale-constrained10
Negative001 against Jirav
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 Aleph and Jirav 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
Aleph Jirav first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Aleph on the left and Jirav on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Aleph and Jirav stood in it.

Aleph first, Jirav not the choice

3 of 14 modelsJirav was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Llama 4 MaverickAleph, Pigment, Prophix alternatives: Cube, Datarails, Workday Adaptive Planning
MiniMax M2.5Aleph, Pigment alternatives: Prophix, Vena
Muse Glimmer 30BAleph, Pigment alternatives: Centage, Cube, Datarails, Prophix, Vena

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Perplexity SonarPigment alternatives: Aleph, Planful, Prophix
DeepSeek V4 FlashPigment alternatives: Aleph, Prophix
Kimi K2Pigment alternatives: Aleph, Datarails, Prophix, Vena
GLM 4.7 FlashXPigment alternatives: Aleph, Prophix

Neither was named

7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Planful alternatives: Cube, Prophix, Vena
GPT-5.4 miniVena alternatives: Anaplan, Datarails, Planful, Workday Adaptive Planning
Gemini 3.5 FlashAbacum, Mosaic alternatives: Cube, Pigment, Planful, Prophix, Vena
Grok 4.20Cube alternatives: Centage, Maxio, Planful, Vena
Mistral SmallPlanful alternatives: Pigment, Prophix
Qwen 3.7 FlashPlanful, Workday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Centage, Cube, Vena
GPT-6 LunaPigment alternatives: Adaptive from Workday, 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
Jirav leads by fourteen points.
Jirav19%#2 of 17
Aleph5%#5 of 17
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Aleph leads at mid-market.
Aleph9%#4 of 14
Jirav2%#8 of 14
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Aleph0%#– of 14
Jirav0%#– of 14
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Aleph

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

“I'd suggest starting with Aleph if your team is spreadsheet-centric and wants quick implementation” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Currently showing high market share... Look closely at Aleph or Cubesoftware.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · first choice

What the models said about Jirav

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

“Be careful with "from $50/month" Jirav pricing: the public plans are described as being for FP&A advisory practices” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · soft negative
“Jirav is an affordable entry point for small businesses ... making it a relatively cost-effective choice” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Pigment vs AlephPigment vs JiravProphix vs AlephProphix vs JiravCube vs AlephCube vs JiravAleph vs PlanfulAleph vs Workday Adaptive PlanningAleph vs VenaPlanful vs JiravWorkday Adaptive Planning vs JiravVena vs JiravAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full FP&A platforms 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.