Every category where a model named Finout 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	4%	4 of 79	8%	25	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	4	0	0	5
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	1	0	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	1	0	3
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	2	0	3
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	0	0	2
Kimi K2	1	1	0	1	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	0	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

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase16 labels5

Comparative15 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained3 labels1

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative7 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative51 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 of the 8 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.

“If your tag hygiene is bad and you have too many different SaaS bills: Go with Finout.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · FinOps · comparative prompt · first choice

“the recommended FinOps tool for a mid-sized B2B company is Vantage or Finout” Llama 4 Maverick · FinOps · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Finout — Modern architecture, good Kubernetes support” Kimi K2 · FinOps · negative prompt · first choice

“Top Pick for Most Mid-Sized Companies: Finout” Qwen 3.7 Flash · FinOps · paraphrase prompt · first choice

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 be cautious: ... some users report slow performance when loading reports and dashboards” GLM 4.7 FlashX · FinOps · negative prompt · soft negative

“Finout or Cloudability (IBM)—though these often suit larger orgs better” Kimi K2 · FinOps · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Finout, over the 51 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Finout was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CloudZero41 of 517Compare →

Vantage38 of 5111Compare →

IBM Apptio Cloudability38 of 517Not in the top three

VMware Tanzu CloudHealth26 of 512Not in the top three

Kubecost21 of 510Not in the top three

ProsperOps20 of 510Not in the top three

AWS Cost Explorer18 of 515Not in the top three

Flexera One17 of 511Not in the top three

nOps16 of 510Not in the top three

Microsoft Cost Management15 of 512Not 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 Finout. 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 40 of the 51 answers that named Finout and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cloudaware.com31

cloudzero.com27

gartner.com21

finout.ioYour site19

amnic.com17

pointfive.co17

nops.io16

usage.ai16

vantage.sh14

learn.g2.com13

172 of the 191 domain citations in answers naming Finout came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/cloud-financial-management-tools20

cloudzero.com/blog/cloud-cost-management-tools18

cloudaware.com/blog/finops-tools17

usage.ai/blogs/finops/tools/best-tools16

cloudaware.com/blog/cloud-cost-management-tools14

pointfive.co/guides/best-finops-tools14

finout.io/blog/finops-tools-guide13

learn.g2.com/best-cloud-cost-management-software13

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 Finout'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 Finout, 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 finout.io 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.