Index › Products › KYP.ai · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

KYP.ai

10Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

6 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. KYP.ai was named 6 times in Process mining, where Apromore led with 19%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business33 of 63

under the label threshold

Mid-market22 of 61

under the label threshold

Enterprise20 of 50

under the label threshold

In process mining · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named KYP.ai for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Process mining	IT operations and endpoint	0%	22 of 61	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Apromore at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for KYP.ai yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated KYP.ai across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative10 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Hybrid Process Intelligence or Task Mining platforms (e.g., Skan AI, KYP.ai, UltimateSuite” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Process mining · negative prompt · alternative

“More accessible mid-market options, some with open-source roots or transparent pricing.” Kimi K2 · Process mining · scale prompt · alternative

“The "Next-Gen" Option (If you are doing Agentic AI): KYP.ai” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Process mining · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Best for Fast ROI & "Messy" Hybrid Workflows: KYP.ai” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Process mining · direct prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as KYP.ai, over the 10 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and KYP.ai was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Celonis Process Intelligence Platform10 of 103Not among the top eight

SAP Signavio Process Intelligence8 of 100Not among the top eight

IBM Process Mining7 of 101Not among the top eight

UiPath Process Mining7 of 101Not among the top eight

Apromore6 of 100Not among the top eight

Microsoft Power Automate Process Mining4 of 102Not among the top eight

Microsoft Power Automate3 of 101Not among the top eight

Fluxicon Disco3 of 100Not among the top eight

Pega2 of 100Not among the top eight

ProM2 of 100Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named KYP.ai. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 10 of the 10 answers that named KYP.ai and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

kyp.ai10

processmind.com8

processexcellencenetwork.com5

thectoclub.com5

guideflow.com4

bardeen.ai3

decisions.com3

g2.com3

microsoft.com3

scribe.com3

No domain is on file for KYP.ai, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

kyp.ai/process-mining-software-comparison8

thectoclub.com/tools/best-process-mining-software5

guideflow.com/blog/process-mining-tools4

processmind.com/resources/blog/the-best-process-mining-tools-of-20264

processmind.com/resources/blog/the-ultimate-list-of-process-mining-tools-for-20263

bardeen.ai/best/process-mining-tools2

ciopages.com/buyer-guides/process-mining2

g2.com/products/celonis/reviews2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where KYP.ai stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 70 a month (“kyp.ai”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 0 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 22 of 61 in process mining

Segment leader

19%

Apromore

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 10 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

Follow KYP.ai

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when KYP.ai's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as KYP.ai, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for KYP.ai by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where KYP.ai is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name KYP.ai, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.