IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Checkmk · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Checkmk

15Judge labels

1First choices

0Negative labels

8 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, 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. Checkmk was named 6 times in Infra monitoring, 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 business13 of 62

under the label threshold

Mid-market14 of 65

under the label threshold

Enterprise21 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 Checkmk 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%	14 of 65	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Site24x7 at 24%

Movement

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

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labels1

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative15 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“Checkmk Cloud - a SaaS-based monitoring solution that provides efficient and hassle-free infrastructure monitoring.” Llama 4 Maverick · Infra monitoring · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Checkmk offers a fantastic balance between the complexity of Zabbix and the simplicity of commercial tools.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Infra monitoring · budget prompt · alternative

“Look at modern self-hosted alternatives like Checkmk or Netdata instead of legacy Nagios.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra monitoring · negative prompt · alternative

“Checkmk — solid middle ground, especially for mixed infrastructure” GPT-5.4 mini · Infra monitoring · budget 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 Checkmk, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Checkmk was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog13 of 153Not in the top three

Zabbix11 of 151Not in the top three

New Relic11 of 150Not in the top three

Dynatrace10 of 150Not in the top three

Grafana9 of 151Not in the top three

Prometheus7 of 152Not in the top three

Netdata5 of 151Not in the top three

Site24x74 of 151Not in the top three

Nagios4 of 150Not in the top three

Paessler PRTG3 of 150Not 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 Checkmk. 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 11 of the 15 answers that named Checkmk and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com7

netdata.cloud6

middleware.io5

checkmk.comYour site4

clickhouse.com3

instatus.com3

sematext.com3

worldmetrics.org3

betterstack.com2

blog.domotz.com2

Thirty-four of the thirty-eight domain citations in answers naming Checkmk came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/infrastructure-monitoring-tools7

netdata.cloud/resources/best-infrastructure-monitoring-tools6

middleware.io/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools5

clickhouse.com/resources/engineering/top-infrastructure-monitoring-tools-comparison3

instatus.com/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools3

blog.domotz.com/all/best-it-infrastructure-monitoring-tools2

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/tools/best-infrastructure-monitoring-tools/1288390232

comparitech.com/net-admin/infrastructure-monitoring2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Checkmk

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

Checkmk (Raw Edition) 1Checkmk / Nagios / Icinga 1Checkmk Cloud 1

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 Checkmk'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 Checkmk, 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 checkmk.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.