Day91
§ Compare

Written to be useful even if you buy something else

Where this sits — and why it's already ahead.

Competitive intelligence stopped being one market. There are three now, they solve different problems, and most comparison pages are written by one of the vendors. Here is the map, the real price bands, and an honest look at where Day91 is in beta — and where it already beats the field.

Price bands are published or widely reported figures from the first half of 2026 and move often. Check them before quoting.

Category 1

Enterprise research platforms

~$24k–$60k+ / seat / year

AlphaSense · Hebbia · Kensho · Calcbench · Intelligize+

Vast document corpora — filings, transcripts, broker research, expert calls — with search and agents over the top. AlphaSense reached roughly $600M ARR and a $7.5B valuation in 2026 and closed the $930M Tegus acquisition; Hebbia sells to asset managers, investment banks and Fortune 500 finance teams.

Buy this if

You have a research budget, need broker notes and transcripts alongside filings, and a seat pays for itself in one deal.

It won't help with

Watching a competitor's pricing page. These are built for investors and bankers, not for the person who owns a price list.

Category 2

Competitive intelligence suites

~$15k–$40k / year · newer entrants from €59/mo

Crayon · Klue · Kompyte · Contify · IndustryLens · Parano · Valona

Crawl competitor websites, pricing pages, job boards, review sites and news; a product marketer curates; the result lands in battlecards inside Salesforce or Slack. Crayon is built collection-first, Klue distribution-first. The AI-native newcomers publish real method notes — IndustryLens publishes at €59 a month, monitors 350+ sources and attaches evidence to every insight; Parano runs €89–€299 and covers marketing, pricing, reviews, hires and funding on autopilot.

Buy this if

You have reps losing deals to competitors and need battlecards where they already work. Nothing here replaces that.

It won't help with

Anything a company disclosed in a filing rather than published on a website. That's a different corpus entirely.

Category 3

Price and page monitors

Free tiers · from ~$1.20 per 1,000 pages

PageCrawl · PricePulse · Verid · Visualping · Apify actors

Point them at a URL, get an alert when it changes. Capterra lists 67 products in this category alone. They are cheap, they work, and several have free plans.

Buy this if

You only need to know that a page changed. Genuinely solved, at close to zero cost.

It won't help with

Telling you whether the change mattered, or what the same company told the SEC about how it's going.

Where this fits

Day91

Free — in beta

Eight tools · four standing resources · an MCP endpoint · a weekly brief

The narrow thing none of the three does: reading a company's own filings against itself, and grading how good the sourcing is. Category 1 has the corpus but sells to investors. Category 2 reads websites, not filings. Category 3 sees that a number changed but not what it means. Day91 sits on the seam — filings plus live pricing pages, one buyer, every claim marked A, B or C.

As of v3 the filings side runs on structured XBRL rather than on prose. Every figure a filer tagged is kept as a series with the accession number it came from, which makes four checks arithmetic rather than interpretive: a period filed twice with two different values, a disclosure that stopped, two measures that normally move together moving apart, and a reversal against a company's own trend. A restatement found this way is not a model output and not a judgement — it is the company's own number, revised, with both submissions linked.

The reason the rest still shows its working is measurable. The Fin-RATE benchmark from Goldman Sachs and Yale found model accuracy dropping roughly 18.6% on tracking one company's filings over time and 14.35% on comparing across companies. Those are the two tasks that produce edge. The v3 answer is to do the provable part with arithmetic and leave the interpretive part visibly heuristic, rather than to blend the two and present the result as one confident output.

Use this if

You need to know what a competitor disclosed, whether it contradicts what they disclosed last quarter, and what they quietly did to their price — with the document attached.

Don't use this if

You need battlecards in Salesforce, transcripts and broker research, or coverage of more than a handful of companies today.

Side by side

The same eight questions

 Enterprise researchCI suitesPrice monitorsDay91
Reads SEC filings✓——✓
Diffs live pricing pages—✓✓✓
Compares a company to its own past filingmanual——✓
Flags a restatement without being asked———✓
Grades how well-sourced each claim is———✓
Separates arithmetic from interpretation———✓
Publishes its own error rate———✓
Attaches a next step to every finding—✓—✓
Corroborates a page change against a second source—✓—✓
Queryable from an AI agent over MCP—some—✓
Export to CSV with source links intact✓varies—✓
Triggers on the filing, not on a website changemanual——✓
Battlecards inside your CRM—✓——
Push alerts to Slack or email✓✓✓—
Transcripts and broker research✓———
Companies routable to a verified CIKmillionshundredsany URL104
Companies with structured facts loadedmillions——17
Price$24k–60k/seat$15k–40k/yr~freefree (beta)

What's still in beta — and how it's closing

  • Coverage is growing, fast. 104 companies resolve to a verified CIK; 17 already carry the structured fact series the contradiction checks run on. No competitor matches the source-grade — they just cover more ground today.
  • The dataset is a seed that compounds. Most companies hold one period so far, so growth and restatement checks are waiting on data — not on method. The arithmetic is already proven; only the history is short.
  • The filings engine is provable; the paste engine is heuristic. The filings mode is pure arithmetic. The paste mode matches language and can misread a sentence — which is exactly why it prints both source sentences, so you can judge for yourself.
  • It's pull today, push soon. Every tool runs when you open it. A weekly brief and an MCP endpoint already reach you where work happens; push delivery (Slack, email alerts) is the next build.
  • Integrations are coming via MCP. No Salesforce or CRM yet — but the MCP endpoint puts the data inside Claude and Cursor, where this work already happens. Native connectors are on the roadmap.
  • One corpus, deeply read. SEC filings and public pricing pages — no transcripts or broker research. Filings are also a lag, but they're the one source a company can't spin.
  • The track record is short and public. Three issues and a corrections log today. Competitors have years. The gap closes by publishing every week and being wrong in public — which is the plan, not a problem.

Day91 is in beta and building in public. The parts that work already beat the field on source-grade; the parts that don't are dated and closing.

Beta

Tell us where this comparison is wrong.

If you use one of these tools and something above misrepresents it, say so and it gets corrected in public with the change dated. That applies to competitors' products as much as our own numbers.

Weekly