IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › AWS CloudWatch · September 2026 Edition

AWS · 2 categories · Named, not ranked

AWS CloudWatch

13Judge labels

0First choices

6Negative labels

7 of 12Models named it

2Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. AWS CloudWatch was named 5 times in Infra monitoring and 1 other category, where Site24x7 led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business21 of 62

under the label threshold

Mid-market26 of 65

under the label threshold

Enterprise65 of 66

under the label threshold

In infra monitoring · 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 AWS CloudWatch 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
Infrastructure monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	26 of 65	25%	4	under 10 labels · led by Site24x7 at 24%
Observability platforms	IT operations and endpoint	0%	58 of 63	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Grafana at 29%

Movement

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

By model

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative8 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 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.

“best if you're heavily committed to a single cloud and want to minimize third-party tools” GPT-5.4 mini · Infra monitoring · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Use CloudWatch + optional Site24x7 for unified view” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Infra monitoring · paraphrase 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.

“exporting telemetry data out of AWS/Azure to a third-party tool incurs massive network data egress fees” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

“often criticized for being a *monitoring* tool rather than a true *observability* platform” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Observability · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AWS CloudWatch, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AWS CloudWatch was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog11 of 132Not in the top three

Azure Monitor11 of 130Not in the top three

Dynatrace8 of 130Not in the top three

Zabbix8 of 130Not in the top three

Nagios7 of 130Not in the top three

New Relic7 of 130Not in the top three

Grafana5 of 131Not in the top three

Prometheus5 of 130Not in the top three

Google Cloud Operations4 of 130Not in the top three

Prometheus + Grafana3 of 132Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 AWS CloudWatch. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 7 of the 13 answers that named AWS CloudWatch and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com6

signoz.io4

atatus.com3

middleware.io3

netdata.cloud3

clickhouse.com2

devopsschool.com2

dotcom-monitor.com2

g2.com2

kentik.com2

Twenty-nine of the twenty-nine domain citations in answers naming AWS CloudWatch came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/infrastructure-monitoring-tools4

middleware.io/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools3

netdata.cloud/resources/best-infrastructure-monitoring-tools3

signoz.io/comparisons/infrastructure-monitoring-tools3

clickhouse.com/resources/engineering/top-infrastructure-monitoring-tools-comparison2

gartner.com/reviews/market/observability-platforms2

siffletdata.com/blog/splunk-review2

16idc.com/en-us/article-detail/cloud-monitoring-services-comparison1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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 AWS CloudWatch'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 AWS CloudWatch, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at awscloud.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.