Process mining · October 2026 Edition
Apromore vs PM4Py
Two of fourteen models named Apromore first on the direct prompt; zero named PM4Py. Apromore was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and PM4Py by ten and Apromore carries 37 labels and PM4Py 14, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
PM4Py
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share19%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate3%29%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#8A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels3714A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Apromore reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.UiPath Process Mining was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Apromore vs Microsoft Power Automate Process Mining · Apromore vs IBM Process Mining · Apromore vs UiPath Process Mining
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 process mining page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ApromoreFirst choices, of fourteen modelsPM4PyDirect20
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained81
Scale-constrained10
Negative001 against Apromore · 4 against PM4Py
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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Apromore and PM4Py were named in the same answer sixteen times, of the 95 answers naming Apromore and the 27 naming PM4Py. In those answers PM4Py took the first choice zero times and Apromore eleven.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Apromore and PM4Py stood in it.
| Model | DirectPM | ParaphrasePM | ComparativePM | Budget-constrainedPM | Scale-constrainedPM | NegativePM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | PM | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | PM | |||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | PM | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | PM | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | PM | | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | PM | PM | |||
| Kimi K2 | | | | PM | | PM |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | PM | PM | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | PM | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | PM | PM | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B |
ApromorePM PM4Py first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apromore on the left and PM4Py on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Apromore and PM4Py stood in it.
Apromore first, PM4Py not the choice
2 of 14 modelsPM4Py was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.MiniMax M2.5Apromore, Celonis Process Intelligence Platform alternatives: IBM Process Mining, Microsoft Power Automate Process Mining, UiPath Process Mining
GPT-6 LunaApromore alternatives: Power Automate Process Mining, SAP Signavio Process Intelligence, UiPath Process Mining
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Microsoft Power Automate alternatives: Apromore, ProcessMind, QPR ProcessAnalyzer
Gemini 3.5 FlashMicrosoft Power Automate Process Mining alternatives: Apromore, KYP.ai, UiPath Process Mining
Grok 4.1 FastMicrosoft Power Automate alternatives: Apromore, UiPath Process Mining
Kimi K2Microsoft Power Automate Process Mining, Mindzie alternatives: Apromore, MEHRWERK, QPR ProcessAnalyzer
GLM 4.7 FlashXMindzie alternatives: ABBYY Timeline, Apromore, Microsoft Power Automate
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniUiPath Process Mining alternatives: Celonis Process Intelligence Platform, SAP Signavio Process Intelligence
Perplexity SonarMicrosoft Power Automate Process Mining alternatives: SAP Signavio Process Intelligence, UiPath Process Mining
Mistral SmallCelonis Process Intelligence Platform alternatives: SAP Signavio Process Intelligence, UiPath Process Mining
DeepSeek V4 FlashMicrosoft Power Automate Process Mining, UiPath Process Mining alternatives: Mindzie, Minit, ProcessMind
Llama 4 MaverickProcessMaker
Qwen 3.7 FlashEverflow Process Intelligence, ProcessMaker alternatives: SAP Signavio Process Intelligence, UiPath Process Mining
Muse Glimmer 30BDecisions, ProcessMaker alternatives: Microsoft Power Automate Process Mining, Noxus
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
Apromore leads by twelve points.
Apromore12%#3 of 12PM4Py0%#11 of 12
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Apromore0%#7 of 8PM4Py0%#– of 8
The full enterprise standing →What the models said about Apromore
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Limited compared to commercial version; requires technical expertise” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Mid-Market & Agile Specialized Tools (e.g., Apromore, Fluxicon Disco, IBM Process Mining): Often much faster to implement, cost-effective” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with Apromore's free Community Edition if you have some technical capability” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“For most budget-conscious companies, I'd recommend starting with Apromore Community Edition” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about PM4Py
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“No graphical user interface – Requires programming knowledge and development skills” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“Open Source Tools (Avoid if You Don't Have Developers)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Open-source libraries such as PM4Py, if you expect a turnkey business app... a library may leave you responsible for building the interface” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“Best low-budget starting point: PM4Py—if your company has someone comfortable with Python and data preparation.” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
“If you have technical/data science resources, PM4Py offers the most power and flexibility at zero cost.” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · alternative
“PM4Py is the leading open-source library for process mining in Python. It is completely free” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared
Apromore vs Microsoft Power Automate Process MiningApromore vs IBM Process MiningApromore vs UiPath Process MiningApromore vs Microsoft Power AutomateApromore vs SAP Signavio Process IntelligenceApromore vs Celonis Process Intelligence PlatformMicrosoft Power Automate Process Mining vs PM4PyIBM Process Mining vs PM4PyUiPath Process Mining vs PM4PyMicrosoft Power Automate vs PM4PySAP Signavio Process Intelligence vs PM4PyCelonis Process Intelligence Platform vs PM4PyAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full process mining 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.