Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 13 → 16 of 72
3 categories · RankedCheckmk
30Judge labels
0First choices
2Negative labels
12 / 14Models named it
3Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
0% in Infra monitoring for mid-market buyers
Rank 16 of 79 in the mid-market standing
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 5 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business17 of 74
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market16 of 79
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise16 of 70
0%3 labels
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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infrastructure monitoring | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 16 of 79 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Datadog at 28% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Network monitoring and management | Network and edge | 0% | 21 of 78 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Auvik at 26% | |
| Website and synthetic monitoring | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 45 of 67 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by UptimeRobot at 24% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Checkmk held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Infra monitoring · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 14 → 17 of 69
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 23 → 15 of 65
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infra monitoring | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 14 → 16 of 79 |
| Network monitoring | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 21 of 78, unchanged |
| Uptime monitoring | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 45 of 67, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Checkmk across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Checkmk across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
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 labelsNone
Paraphrase1 labelNone
Comparative7 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained7 labelsNone
Scale-constrained2 labelsNone
Negative10 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative30 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 2 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.
“Consider Icinga 2, Zabbix, Checkmk, or Prometheus + Grafana instead.” Kimi K2 · Infra monitoring · negative prompt · alternative
“Uptime Kuma, Checkmk | If you have strict data residency requirements” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Uptime monitoring · scale prompt · alternative
“Checkmk offers a free community edition and built-in integrations” GPT-6 Luna · Infra monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative
“Hybrid self‑hosted or SaaS with strong automation | Checkmk” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Network monitoring · comparative 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.
“Datadog, New Relic, and Checkmk are powerful, but overkill for teams that primarily need uptime monitoring and status pages” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Uptime monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Checkmk, over the 30 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.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Checkmk, over the 30 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.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 Checkmk. 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 27 of the 30 answers that named Checkmk and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
netdata.cloud10
comparitech.com9
motadata.com8
techradar.com8
guideflow.com7
signoz.io7
solarwinds.com7
cubeapm.com6
g2.com6
ir.com6
Seventy-four of the seventy-four domain citations in answers naming Checkmk came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
checkmk.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Checkmk takes 0% of first choices and Datadog takes 28%.ShowHide
Search and answers
checkmk.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Checkmk takes 0% of first choices and Datadog takes 28%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “infrastructure monitoring tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “infrastructure monitoring tools”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 2,400 a month (“checkmk”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 53 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 5,596 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 2,591 · 140 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 3,296
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 16 of 79 in infra monitoring
Segment leader
28%
Datadog
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 30 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 27 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on checkmk.com
21,223
subdomains included
Content
477
counted in the table below
Documentation
335
Product · Integration
28 · 2,261
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 124 | 3 | 2026-09-10 | Infra monitoring, Observability | |
| Glossary or explainer | 101 | 0 | 2023-01-11 | ||
| Podcast or video | 80 | 0 | 2019-01-13 | ||
| Report or ebook | 52 | 0 | 2019-01-13 | ||
| News or press | 35 | 0 | 2026-06-09 | ||
| Conference or event | 32 | 0 | 2026-06-16 | ||
| Case study | 22 | 0 | 2019-01-13 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 21 | 0 | 2019-01-13 | ||
| Comparison | 10 | 1 | 2026-09-18 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-18Best logicmonitor alternatives comparison
- 2026-09-10Ai powered workflows checkmk mcp server now available blog
- 2026-08-17It tooling in transition survey blog
- 2026-07-29Network monitoring with checkmk 2 0 blog
- 2026-06-16Checkmk conference 12 tackling complexity hybrid it operations conference or event
- 2026-06-09Checkmk and xurrent partner keep cmdb current live monitoring data news or press
Events in person
Last twelve months
- June 16, 2026 to June 18, 2026Checkmk Conference #12Paulaner am Nockherberg, Munich, Germany · hosted
- June 16, 2026Checkmk Conference #12Paulaner am Nockherberg, Monaco, Germany · hybrid · hosted
As the event pages on checkmk.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page checkmk.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
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 (formerly Check_MK) 1Checkmk / Nagios 1
Follow Checkmk
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.
The company
Checkmk is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Checkmk is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- the full-stack monitoring and observability platform for hybrid environments
- For
- organizations with critical infrastructure
- Price stated
- From 190€ per month you get a powerful and comprehensive IT monitoring. checkmk.com/pricing
- Starting price
- 190 checkmk.com/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Free trial checkmk.com
- Integrations claimed
- 2000 checkmk.com
- Certifications
- ISO 27001SOC2 type IISO 27001:2022GDPRSIGSOC 2 Type IEU AI ActDORA
- Hosting
- Frankfurt (EU)Northern Virginia (US)EUUS
- Customers named
- AdobeSiemensZalandoFujitsuVWHPFitbitCloudera
What Checkmk's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: checkmk.com, checkmk.com/pricing, trust.checkmk.com, checkmk.com/product/roadmap, checkmk.com/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of 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 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.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Checkmk by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Checkmk 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 Checkmk, 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.