Index › Finance › Planning and analysis › FP&A platforms › Cube vs Aleph
FP&A platforms · November 2026 Edition

Cube vs Aleph

One of fourteen models named Cube first on the direct prompt; three named Aleph. Cube was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Aleph by twelve and Cube carries 53 labels and Aleph 25, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Cube

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

Aleph

accepted challenger

Named in five categories this edition.

First-choice share12%9%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate11%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#4A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels5325A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Cube 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 Cube · Pigment vs Aleph · Prophix vs Cube

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.
CubeFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAleph
Direct13
Paraphrase01
Comparative00
Budget-constrained601 against Cube
Scale-constrained01
Negative005 against Cube
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 Cube and Aleph 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
Cube Aleph first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Cube on the left and Aleph on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Cube first, Aleph not the choice

1 of 14 modelsAleph was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Grok 4.20Cube alternatives: Centage, Maxio, Planful, Vena

Aleph first, Cube an alternative

3 of 14 modelsCube 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

7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Planful alternatives: Cube, Prophix, Vena
Gemini 3.5 FlashAbacum, Mosaic alternatives: Cube, Pigment, Planful, Prophix, Vena
Perplexity SonarPigment alternatives: Aleph, Planful, Prophix
DeepSeek V4 FlashPigment alternatives: Aleph, Prophix
Qwen 3.7 FlashPlanful, Workday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Centage, Cube, Vena
Kimi K2Pigment alternatives: Aleph, Datarails, Prophix, Vena
GLM 4.7 FlashXPigment alternatives: Aleph, Prophix

Neither was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniVena alternatives: Anaplan, Datarails, Planful, Workday Adaptive Planning
Mistral SmallPlanful alternatives: Pigment, Prophix
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
Cube leads by nineteen points.
Cube24%#1 of 17
Aleph5%#5 of 17
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Cube leads by four points.
Cube12%#3 of 14
Aleph9%#4 of 14
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Cube leads by four points.
Cube4%#7 of 14
Aleph0%#– of 14
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Cube

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

“Excel-adjacent tools like Datarails, Cube, and Vena may not be suitable for long-term scalability in large enterprises” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · soft negative
“median pricing for those lands in the $30,000+ range—typically too expensive for "limited budget" teams” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · soft negative
“The best FP&A software for a company with a limited budget is Cube, which offers a free plan and paid plans starting at $40-$80/user/mo.” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice

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
Also compared

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.