Internal controls and SOX · November 2026 Edition
FloQast vs Process Street
Seven of fourteen models named FloQast first on the direct prompt; zero named Process Street. FloQast was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Process Street by nine and FloQast carries 20 labels and Process Street 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in seven categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share23%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate10%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#7A position in a field of 18; printed, not drawn.
Labels2012A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, FloQast reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Workiva was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. FloQast vs AuditBoard · FloQast vs Workiva · FloQast vs Hyperproof
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.
FloQastFirst choices, of fourteen modelsProcess Street
Direct70
Paraphrase40
Comparative00
Budget-constrained022 against FloQast
Scale-constrained10
Negative00
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 FloQast 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 | |
FloQast Process Street first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, FloQast on the left and Process Street on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where FloQast and Process Street stood in it.
FloQast first, Process Street not the choice
7 of 14 modelsProcess Street was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarFloQast alternatives: Hyperproof, Optro, Workiva
Grok 4.20FloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, Hyperproof, Onspring
DeepSeek V4 FlashFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, Hyperproof, Onspring, Optro, VComply, Workiva
Kimi K2FloQast alternatives: BlackLine Controls & Certifications, ComplyJet, Pathlock, Vanta
GLM 4.7 FlashXFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, Hyperproof, Onspring, Workiva
MiniMax M2.5AuditBoard, FloQast alternatives: BlackLine Controls & Certifications, Pathlock, Vanta
Muse Glimmer 30BFloQast alternatives: AuditBoard, BlackLine Controls & Certifications, Diligent One Platform, Optro, Workiva
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Optro alternatives: BlackLine Controls & Certifications, FloQast, Netwrix Auditor, Resolver
GPT-5.4 miniOptro, Workiva alternatives: FloQast
Gemini 3.5 FlashAuditBoard alternatives: FloQast, Hyperproof, LogicGate Risk Cloud, Workiva
Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Mistral SmallScytale, Workiva alternatives: Optro, Sprinto
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashAuditBoard, VComply alternatives: BlackLine Controls & Certifications, Drata, 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 five points.
Process Street5%#5 of 14FloQast0%#12 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: FloQast leads at mid-market.
FloQast23%#1 of 18Process Street4%#7 of 18Enterprise
FloQast leads by two points.
FloQast2%#11 of 14Process Street0%#– of 14What the models said about FloQast
No label in this category carried a quote.
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 WorkivaFloQast vs HyperproofFloQast vs OptroFloQast vs VComplyFloQast vs OnspringAuditBoard vs Process StreetWorkiva 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.