Index › Products › ProcessMaker · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ProcessMaker

3Judge labels

3First choices

0Negative labels

3 / 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

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ProcessMaker was named 3 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 businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market7 of 61

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

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 ProcessMaker 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	5%	7 of 61	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Apromore at 19%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ProcessMaker 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 ProcessMaker across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

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

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

Direct3 labels3

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 3 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.

“Some of the top tools include ProcessMaker, which is an open-core workflow and mining tool suitable for mid-market companies.” Llama 4 Maverick · Process mining · direct prompt · first choice

“ProcessMaker and Decisions are the two vendors explicitly marketed for mid-market in 2026” Muse Glimmer 30B · Process mining · direct prompt · first choice

“Tools like Everflow and ProcessMaker often win here due to easier usability.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Process mining · direct prompt · first choice

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 ProcessMaker, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ProcessMaker was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Celonis Process Intelligence Platform2 of 30Not among the top eight

UiPath Process Mining2 of 30Not among the top eight

Decisions1 of 30Not among the top eight

Everflow Process Intelligence1 of 30Not among the top eight

IBM Process Mining1 of 30Not among the top eight

Microsoft Power Automate Process Mining1 of 30Not among the top eight

Noxus1 of 30Not among the top eight

SAP Signavio Process Intelligence1 of 30Not among the top eight

Signavio1 of 30Not 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 ProcessMaker. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named ProcessMaker and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

processmind.com3

bardeen.ai2

erpresearch.com2

articsledge.com1

ciopages.com1

decisions.com1

documentation.decisions.com1

g2.com1

guideflow.com1

intellifold.ai1

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

Pages cited

bardeen.ai/best/process-mining-tools2

erpresearch.com/erp-add-ons/process-mining2

processmind.com/resources/blog/the-best-process-mining-tools-of-20262

articsledge.com/post/process-mining1

bardeen.ai/best/process-intelligence-software1

ciopages.com/buyer-guides/process-mining1

decisions.com/datasheets/decisions-process-mining1

decisions.com/mid-market-pricing1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ProcessMaker

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ProcessMaker; a claim can dispute any of them.

ProcessMaker (PI Platform) 1

Follow ProcessMaker

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 ProcessMaker'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 ProcessMaker, 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 ProcessMaker by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where ProcessMaker 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 ProcessMaker, 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.