Internal controls and SOX · November 2026 Edition
AuditBoard vs Process Street
Three of fourteen models named AuditBoard first on the direct prompt; zero named Process Street. AuditBoard was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Process Street by nine and AuditBoard carries 42 labels and Process Street 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share17%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate7%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#7A position in a field of 18; printed, not drawn.
Labels4212A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, AuditBoard reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.FloQast was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. FloQast vs AuditBoard · FloQast vs Process Street · AuditBoard vs Workiva
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 Internal controls and SOX page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AuditBoardFirst choices, of fourteen modelsProcess Street
Direct301 against AuditBoard
Paraphrase40
Comparative80
Budget-constrained021 against AuditBoard
Scale-constrained20
Negative001 against AuditBoard
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 AuditBoard and Process Street stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | | | |
AuditBoard Process Street first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, AuditBoard on the left and Process Street on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where AuditBoard and Process Street stood in it.
AuditBoard first, Process Street not the choice
3 of 14 modelsProcess Street was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashAuditBoard alternatives: FloQast, Hyperproof, LogicGate Risk Cloud, Workiva
Qwen 3.7 FlashAuditBoard, VComply alternatives: BlackLine Controls & Certifications, Drata, Vanta
MiniMax M2.5AuditBoard, FloQast alternatives: BlackLine Controls & Certifications, Pathlock, Vanta
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.Grok 4.20FloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, Hyperproof, Onspring
DeepSeek V4 FlashFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, Hyperproof, Onspring, Optro, VComply, Workiva
GLM 4.7 FlashXFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, Hyperproof, Onspring, Workiva
Muse Glimmer 30BFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, BlackLine Controls & Certifications, Diligent One Platform, Optro, Workiva
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Optro alternatives: BlackLine Controls & Certifications, FloQast, Netwrix Auditor, Resolver
GPT-5.4 miniOptro, Workiva alternatives: FloQast
Perplexity SonarFloQast alternatives: Hyperproof, Optro, Workiva
Mistral SmallScytale, Workiva alternatives: Optro, Sprinto
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Kimi K2FloQast alternatives: BlackLine Controls & Certifications, ComplyJet, Pathlock, Vanta
GPT-6 LunaFloQast Compliance Management alternatives: Optro, Workiva
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
Process Street leads by three points.
Process Street5%#5 of 14AuditBoard2%#9 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: AuditBoard leads at mid-market.
AuditBoard17%#2 of 18Process Street4%#7 of 18Enterprise
AuditBoard leads by twenty-three points.
AuditBoard23%#2 of 14Process Street0%#– of 14What the models said about AuditBoard
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Most enterprise solutions (Workiva, AuditBoard/Optro, Diligent) don't publish pricing and are likely overkill for mid-market budgets” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · soft negative
“Be cautious with: Workiva, MetricStream, IBM OpenPages, and AuditBoard (for smaller organizations).” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“quote-based and typically start in the tens of thousands per year” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · soft negative
“Choose AuditBoard (Optro) if your Internal Audit team is driving the tool purchase and needs an intuitive, audit-first workpaper and SOX management platform.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“described as a leading cloud-based platform that automates, collaborates and reports in real-time on critical risk, audit and compliance workflows” Muse Glimmer 30B · comparative prompt · first choice
“If you are a standard B2B services or logistics company looking to clean up your financial controls and audit readiness, go with AuditBoard.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Process Street
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Process Street *(Best for Minimal Budgets & Small Teams)* ... simple, predictable SaaS pricing model with low onboarding friction” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Process Street ⭐ Best Overall for Limited Budgets” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Process Street or Optro: Workflow-heavy options; ideal if your gap is recurring control execution with evidence capture.” Grok 4.20 · scale prompt · alternative
Also compared
FloQast vs AuditBoardFloQast vs Process StreetAuditBoard vs WorkivaAuditBoard vs HyperproofAuditBoard vs OptroAuditBoard vs VComplyAuditBoard vs OnspringWorkiva vs Process StreetHyperproof vs Process StreetOptro vs Process StreetVComply vs Process StreetProcess Street vs OnspringAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full internal controls 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.