Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › Grafana · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Grafana

4Judge labels

1First 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. Grafana was named 3 times in Financial reporting, where Sage Intacct led with 27%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market116 of 133

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In financial reporting · 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 Grafana 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
Financial reporting and dashboards	Planning and analysis	0%	116 of 133	67%	3	under 10 labels · led by Sage Intacct at 27%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Grafana 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 Grafana 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	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 label1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

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.

“Not designed for BI: Built for monitoring/metrics, not business analytics” Kimi K2 · Financial reporting · negative prompt · soft negative

“Not for general BI; dev-oriented” Grok 4.1 Fast · Financial reporting · comparative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Grafana, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Grafana was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Power BI3 of 42Not in the top three

Metabase3 of 41Not in the top three

Looker3 of 40Not in the top three

Looker Studio3 of 40Not in the top three

Tableau3 of 40Not in the top three

Domo2 of 40Not in the top three

Apache Superset1 of 40Not in the top three

Baremetrics1 of 40Not in the top three

ChartMogul1 of 40Not in the top three

ChatGPT/AI Writing Tools for Reports1 of 40Not 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 Grafana. 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 4 answers that named Grafana and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

rollstack.com3

fastero.com2

integrate.io2

owox.com2

peerspot.com2

reddit.com2

thoughtspot.com2

worldmetrics.org2

baremetrics.com1

blazesql.com1

Nineteen of the nineteen domain citations in answers naming Grafana came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

integrate.io/blog/the-7-best-reporting-tools2

owox.com/blog/articles/reporting-tools2

peerspot.com/categories/reporting2

rollstack.com/articles/automated-reporting-tools-the-8-best-tools-available2

worldmetrics.org/best/reporting-analytics-software2

baremetrics.com/blog/saas-metrics-dashboards-examples-templates1

blazesql.com/blog/bi-reporting-tools1

blazesql.com/blog/bi-tool-comparison1

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 Grafana'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 Grafana, 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 grafana.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.