IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Kubecost / OpenCost · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Kubecost / OpenCost

3Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

2 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Kubecost / OpenCost was named 1 time 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 business30 of 78

under the label threshold

Mid-market60 of 79

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

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 Kubecost / OpenCost 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%	60 of 79	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Vantage at 54%

Movement

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

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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Kubecost / OpenCost, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Kubecost / OpenCost was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Vantage3 of 32Not in the top three

Microsoft Cost Management3 of 30Not in the top three

AWS Cost Explorer2 of 30Not in the top three

Google Cloud Cost Management2 of 30Not in the top three

IBM Apptio Cloudability2 of 30Not in the top three

Infracost2 of 30Not in the top three

ProsperOps2 of 30Not in the top three

VMware Tanzu CloudHealth2 of 30Not in the top three

AWS Billing and Cost Management1 of 30Not in the top three

AWS Cost Explorer/AWS Budgets1 of 30Not 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 Kubecost / OpenCost. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named Kubecost / OpenCost and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cloudaware.com3

cloudzero.com3

learn.g2.com3

amnic.com2

geekflare.com2

harness.io2

hostingx.co.il2

openmetal.io2

peerspot.com2

spendark.com2

Twenty-three of the twenty-three domain citations in answers naming Kubecost / OpenCost came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cloudaware.com/blog/cloud-cost-management-tools3

cloudzero.com/blog/cloud-cost-management-tools3

learn.g2.com/best-cloud-cost-management-software3

amnic.com/blogs/cloud-cost-management-tools2

geekflare.com/guides/best-cloud-cost-management-tools2

harness.io/blog/cloud-cost-management-tools2

hostingx.co.il/articles/best-cloud-cost-management-tools-20262

openmetal.io/resources/blog/which-cloud-cost-management-tool-is-best-for-your-company2

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 Kubecost / OpenCost'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 Kubecost / OpenCost, 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 kubecost.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.