IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › CloudCheckr · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

CloudCheckr

7Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

4 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

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CloudCheckr was named 3 times in FinOps, where Vantage led with 54%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business41 of 78

under the label threshold

Mid-market77 of 79

under the label threshold

Enterprise30 of 53

under the label threshold

In finops · 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 CloudCheckr 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
Cloud cost management	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	77 of 79	67%	3	under 10 labels · led by Vantage at 54%

Movement

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Why to avoid: ... Ownership Chaos: CloudCheckr has changed ownership four times” GLM 4.7 FlashX · FinOps · negative prompt · hard negative

“Dated interface, data delays, and slower pace of innovation” MiniMax M2.5 · FinOps · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as CloudCheckr, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CloudCheckr was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

VMware Tanzu CloudHealth7 of 71Not in the top three

Kubecost4 of 71Not in the top three

Infracost3 of 70Not in the top three

Microsoft Cost Management3 of 70Not in the top three

ProsperOps3 of 70Not in the top three

IBM Apptio Cloudability2 of 71Not in the top three

AWS Cost Explorer2 of 70Not in the top three

CloudZero2 of 70Not in the top three

Densify2 of 70Not in the top three

Finout2 of 70Not 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 CloudCheckr. 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 4 of the 7 answers that named CloudCheckr and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cloudaware.com3

aws.amazon.com2

flexera.com2

g2.com2

gartner.com2

nops.io2

peerspot.com2

reddit.com2

usage.ai2

adelatech.com1

Twenty of the twenty domain citations in answers naming CloudCheckr came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

g2.com/categories/cloud-cost-management2

gartner.com/reviews/market/cloud-financial-management-tools2

reddit.com/r/AZURE/comments/1l2bsip/cloud_cost_optimization_platforms_that_dont_suck2

usage.ai/blogs/finops/tools/best-tools2

adelatech.com/how-to-avoid-common-pitfalls-in-cloud-cost-management1

alphaus.cloud/en/blog/5-mistakes-in-cloud-cost-management-you-must-avoid1

aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-s3pimhbls2qpm1

aws.amazon.com/marketplace/reviews/reviews-list/prodview-qjwqj3ntbajt21

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 CloudCheckr'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 CloudCheckr, 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 cloud.nl 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.