Want to become a partner or sponsor, click here to schedule time to talk with the team.

FinOps & Beyond is what engineering, finance, and IT leaders read to understand FinOps, and what it means for operating models, accountability, and spend decisions.

Two weeks ago I wrote how reporting is table stakes and governance is the differentiator that doesn't expire. That issue got more replies and feedback then expected. It also earned pushback from a couple of readers in that I built and manage the directory, you are closest and can see the patterns, but you have not showed or shared.

Fair. An anecdote from a good seat is still an anecdote.

So this week I counted and will share here.

The count

Quick method note so you can judge the numbers yourself. The directory holds 283 FinOps and FinOps-adjacent solutions as of this week. Every entry is categorized against the FinOps Framework capabilities and a set of solution categories I maintain, based on public material, product demos, and the roughly 20% of vendors I've interviewed first-hand. These are my labels, not the vendors' marketing. Where I wasn't sure, I categorized generously. Keep that word in mind. Generously.

Here's the ladder, top to bottom:

Reporting and analytics: 247 of 283. 87%.
Allocation: 137. 48%.
Invoicing and chargeback: 74. 26%.
Governance and controls: 46. 16%.
Unit economics: 28. 10%.

Read it again from the top. Nearly nine in ten vendors will show you your spend. Fewer than half can tie that spend to a team or a product. A quarter can push a number back into the business through chargeback. One in six has anything I'd call a control, something that meets spend before it happens instead of reporting on it after. And one in ten can express cost per unit of output, the number I keep telling you is the only one a CFO actually cares about.

The ladder empties out exactly where the work gets hard. In my opinion, that's not a coincidence. It's the same arc cloud cost tooling ran ten years ago in that you build the view five times over and skip the part that changes what happens. Why? It’s hard!

The AI slice

Now the part I wanted to verify most, because in Issue 21 made a specific claim about it.

101 of the 283 entries claim AI cost as a focus. That's 36% of the directory. And I believe more or claiming AI cost focus with the coming of Tokenomics. In essence, the front line moved, exactly as discussed.

Of those 101:

92% do reporting.
54% do allocation.
11 tools carry a governance and controls categorization.
4 tools pair governance with allocation. Only four.

And one honest caveat that makes this worse, not better. My capability tags aren't AI-specific. A tool tagged with allocation might allocate cloud spend beautifully and not attribute a single token to a team or a feature (or can even capture tokens, yet). So, today, four is the ceiling. The real number of tools that can allocate AI spend and govern it before it happens is at most four, and I'd bet it's lower.

For completeness: exactly one entry in the entire directory carries governance, allocation, and unit economics together. One out of 283.

That sounds like a gold rush. A hundred and one vendors sprinting toward AI cost, ninety-plus arriving with a dashboard, and a group you can count on one hand doing the thing buyers will still be paying for in three years.

What does this tell you

I'm convinced this chart is the cloud reporting arc replaying at higher speed (matching AI). The view got commoditized once and the ecosystem is queuing up to commoditize it again, faster this time, because the same AI everyone is reporting on helps the next vendor ship the same dashboard in a quarter instead of a year.

But the chart also shows where the queue isn't. Governance and controls at 16%. Unit economics at 10%. Those two rungs have been nearly empty for a decade, through two hype cycles, with hundreds of millions in venture funding washing through this market. If the hard part were about to get solved by momentum alone, it would have happened already.

Which means the empty rungs are not a gap in the market waiting to be closed. They're what is missing and what is needed. As a buyer, that's your negotiating power. As a vendor, that's your map.

The job

Three things to do with this on Monday.

Count your own stack the same way. List your cost tools, including the AI spend ones you added this year. For each: does it show, allocate, or control? If everything in the list lands on the first rung, you bought the same product several times.
Run the gate-vs-cap test from Issue 20 on anything new. Ask the vendor to show you the last spend their product stopped, not the last anomaly it flagged. Eleven of 101 even claim the category. Make them show it.
Price the empty rungs into your renewal. Reporting-only tools are negotiable now, because the seller knows what you know: the view expires. Control capabilities are where you accept paying, because scarcity is real there.

The directory has made the pattern visible and I have now shared.

The gold rush is 101 tools wide and four tools deep. Buy accordingly.

Written with the help of AI. All the ideas expressed are mine and mine alone.

Subscribe

FinOps Directory

Give Me Your Opinion