Index › Finance › Planning and analysis › FP&A platforms › Vena vs Jirav
FP&A platforms · November 2026 Edition

Vena vs Jirav

One of fourteen models named Vena first on the direct prompt; zero named Jirav. Vena was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Jirav by ten and Vena carries 49 labels and Jirav 16, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Vena

accepted challenger

Named in ten categories this edition.

Jirav

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

First-choice share5%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate22%19%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#7#8A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels4916A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Vena 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 Vena · Pigment vs Jirav · Prophix vs Vena

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.
VenaFirst choices, of fourteen modelsJirav
Direct10
Paraphrase10
Comparative00
Budget-constrained012 against Vena · 2 against Jirav
Scale-constrained10
Negative009 against Vena · 1 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 Vena 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
Vena Jirav first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Vena on the left and Jirav on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Vena first, Jirav not the choice

1 of 14 modelsJirav was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-5.4 miniVena alternatives: Anaplan, Datarails, Planful, Workday Adaptive Planning

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 4.5Planful alternatives: Cube, Prophix, Vena
Gemini 3.5 FlashAbacum, Mosaic alternatives: Cube, Pigment, Planful, Prophix, Vena
Grok 4.20Cube alternatives: Centage, Maxio, Planful, Vena
Qwen 3.7 FlashPlanful, Workday Adaptive Planning alternatives: Centage, Cube, Vena
Kimi K2Pigment alternatives: Aleph, Datarails, Prophix, Vena
MiniMax M2.5Aleph, Pigment alternatives: Prophix, Vena
GPT-6 LunaPigment alternatives: Adaptive from Workday, Planful, Vena
Muse Glimmer 30BAleph, Pigment alternatives: Centage, Cube, Datarails, Prophix, Vena

Neither was named

5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Perplexity SonarPigment alternatives: Aleph, Planful, Prophix
Mistral SmallPlanful alternatives: Pigment, Prophix
DeepSeek V4 FlashPigment alternatives: Aleph, Prophix
Llama 4 MaverickAleph, Pigment, Prophix alternatives: Cube, Datarails, Workday Adaptive Planning
GLM 4.7 FlashXPigment alternatives: Aleph, Prophix

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 nineteen points.
Jirav19%#2 of 17
Vena0%#15 of 17
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Vena leads at mid-market.
Vena5%#7 of 14
Jirav2%#8 of 14
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Vena leads by two points.
Vena2%#10 of 14
Jirav0%#– of 14
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Vena

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

“Extremely slow performance (e.g., single-cell updates taking 20+ minutes)... many call it "the worst decision"” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · hard negative
“Vena is criticized mainly for scalability and being Excel-in-the-cloud” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative

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

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.