Every category where a model named 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%	21 of 79	8%	12	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained13 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative31 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.

“A free, open-source tool specifically for Kubernetes cost allocation, ideal if your infrastructure is container-based.” Mistral Small · FinOps · budget prompt · alternative

“If you have a DevOps team and want to save money by automating: Set up Cloud Custodian or OpenCost” GLM 4.7 FlashX · FinOps · budget prompt · alternative

“Open-source options (OpenCost, KubeCost community edition) for Kubernetes-specific needs” Kimi K2 · FinOps · negative prompt · alternative

“Choose OpenCost/Kubecost if your primary cloud costs are driven by Kubernetes clusters.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · 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.

“free but requires self-hosting and maintenance, which has hidden engineering costs” Qwen 3.7 Flash · FinOps · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OpenCost, over the 31 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OpenCost was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Vantage28 of 3121Not in the top three

Infracost23 of 312Not in the top three

AWS Cost Explorer20 of 317Not in the top three

Kubecost20 of 310Not in the top three

Microsoft Cost Management17 of 313Not in the top three

CloudZero17 of 310Not in the top three

VMware Tanzu CloudHealth13 of 311Not in the top three

CAST AI12 of 310Not in the top three

IBM Apptio Cloudability10 of 311Not in the top three

ProsperOps10 of 310Not 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 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 27 of the 31 answers that named OpenCost and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cloudzero.com25

cloudaware.com21

spendark.com20

amnic.com13

gartner.com13

usage.ai13

learn.g2.com12

nops.io10

costbench.com7

g2.com7

141 of the 141 domain citations in answers naming OpenCost came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cloudzero.com/blog/cloud-cost-management-tools23

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

spendark.com/blog/cloud-cost-tools-small-business16

gartner.com/reviews/market/cloud-financial-management-tools13

amnic.com/blogs/cloud-cost-management-tools12

learn.g2.com/best-cloud-cost-management-software12

spendark.com/blog/cloud-cost-management-alternatives11

nops.io/blog/cloud-cost-management-software-tools9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as OpenCost

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

Kubecost (now IBM) / OpenCost 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 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 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 opencost.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.