Index › Finance › Spend and procurement › Supplier management › Tradogram vs Ivalua
Supplier management · November 2026 Edition

Tradogram vs Ivalua

Zero of fourteen models named Tradogram first on the direct prompt; zero named Ivalua. Tradogram was named by eight of the fourteen models and Ivalua by thirteen and Tradogram carries 11 labels and Ivalua 25, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Tradogram

accepted challenger

Named in five categories this edition.

Ivalua

criticized challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

First-choice share10%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%32%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels1125A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Tradogram reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Procurify was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. Procurify vs Tradogram · Procurify vs Ivalua · Gatekeeper vs Tradogram

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 supplier management page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
TradogramFirst choices, of fourteen modelsIvalua
Direct003 against Ivalua
Paraphrase011 against Ivalua
Comparative00
Budget-constrained501 against Ivalua
Scale-constrained00
Negative003 against Ivalua
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 Tradogram and Ivalua 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
Tradogram Ivalua first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Tradogram on the left and Ivalua on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Neither was the first choice, one was named

2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Kimi K2Precoro, Procurify alternatives: Gatekeeper, Tradogram, Zip
GLM 4.7 FlashXProcurify alternatives: Gatekeeper, Precoro, Tradogram, Zip

Neither was named

12 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Precoro alternatives: GEP SMART, Kodiak Hub, Spendflo
GPT-5.4 miniProcurify alternatives: Coupa, Omnea, SAP Ariba
Gemini 3.5 FlashZip alternatives: CloudEagle, Gatekeeper, Graphite Connect, Kodiak Hub, Precoro, Procurify, Tropic
Perplexity SonarGatekeeper alternatives: Kodiak Hub, Precoro, Procurify
Grok 4.20Procurify alternatives: Gatekeeper, Precoro
Mistral SmallProcurify alternatives: Gatekeeper, Precoro, SupplierGATEWAY, Zip
DeepSeek V4 FlashPrecoro, Procurify alternatives: Gatekeeper
Llama 4 MaverickGatekeeper alternatives: Kodiak Hub, Payhawk, Procurify
Qwen 3.7 FlashJaggaer alternatives: Kissflow Procurement, Proactis, Tipalti, Verifai
MiniMax M2.5Gatekeeper, Kodiak Hub alternatives: Procurify
GPT-6 LunaKodiak Hub alternatives: Gatekeeper, Precoro
Muse Glimmer 30BProcurify alternatives: Coupa, Gatekeeper, Kodiak Hub, Precoro

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
Tradogram leads by twenty-one points.
Tradogram21%#2 of 9
Ivalua0%#7 of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Tradogram leads by eight points.
Tradogram10%#3 of 11
Ivalua2%#6 of 11
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Ivalua leads at enterprise.
Ivalua11%#3 of 9
Tradogram0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Tradogram

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

“If you need full procurement (POs, contracts, approvals) → Tradogram (free tier first, then ~$99–225/month)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Start with Tradogram ($99/month) if you need a professional solution with room to grow” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
“Best Overall for Budget Procurement & Supplier Management: Tradogram” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Ivalua

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

“What to Avoid - SAP Ariba, Coupa, Ivalua — ... overkill for most mid-sized companies” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“Avoid pure enterprise tools like SAP Ariba, Coupa, Ivalua, or Jaggaer” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · hard negative
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.