Every category where a model named nOps 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	2%	8 of 79	6%	18	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for nOps 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 nOps 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	2	1	0	3
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	4	0	0	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	3	1	0	4
Mistral Small	1	1	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	2	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	0	1	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	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

Direct10 labelsNone

Paraphrase4 labels1

Comparative13 labelsNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative40 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.

“For most mid-sized B2B companies, Vantage or nOps are excellent starting points” Mistral Small · FinOps · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Offers self-service platforms suitable for mid-market companies spending between $10K\u2013$100K/month” Mistral Small · FinOps · direct prompt · alternative

“nOps: Excellent for AWS-heavy, fast-growing teams... automated commitment management” Gemini 3.5 Flash · FinOps · direct prompt · alternative

“nOps uses ML to automate AWS cost optimization with a performance-based pricing model.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · FinOps · 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.

“AWS-Only Focus: nOps is excellent for AWS, but it has very limited support for Azure and GCP.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · FinOps · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as nOps, over the 40 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and nOps was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Vantage32 of 4012Not in the top three

CloudZero30 of 406Not in the top three

IBM Apptio Cloudability26 of 408Not in the top three

VMware Tanzu CloudHealth20 of 402Not in the top three

CAST AI20 of 400Not in the top three

ProsperOps17 of 400Not in the top three

Finout16 of 401Not in the top three

Kubecost16 of 400Not in the top three

Flexera One15 of 402Not in the top three

Harness Cloud Cost Management13 of 400Not 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 nOps. 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 35 of the 40 answers that named nOps and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cloudaware.com24

cloudzero.com24

nops.ioYour site24

amnic.com20

gartner.com17

usage.ai14

vantage.sh14

finout.io13

pointfive.co11

learn.g2.com10

147 of the 171 domain citations in answers naming nOps came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cloudzero.com/blog/cloud-cost-management-tools21

nops.io/blog/cloud-cost-management-software-tools21

gartner.com/reviews/market/cloud-financial-management-tools17

cloudaware.com/blog/cloud-cost-management-tools16

usage.ai/blogs/finops/tools/best-tools14

amnic.com/blogs/cloud-cost-management-tools13

cloudaware.com/blog/cloud-cost-optimization-tools11

learn.g2.com/best-cloud-cost-management-software10

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as nOps

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

nOps/ProsperOps 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 nOps'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 nOps, 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 nops.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.