Infrastructure monitoring · October 2026 Edition
Zabbix vs New Relic
Zero of fourteen models named Zabbix first on the direct prompt; two named New Relic. Both were named by all fourteen models and Zabbix carries 46 labels and New Relic 49, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in eight categories this edition.
Named in eight categories this edition.
First-choice share20%16%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate22%16%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#3A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels4649A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Zabbix reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Datadog was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. Datadog vs Zabbix · Datadog vs New Relic · Zabbix vs ManageEngine OpManager
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the infrastructure monitoring page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ZabbixFirst choices, of fourteen modelsNew Relic
Direct021 against Zabbix
Paraphrase041 against Zabbix
Comparative00
Budget-constrained1002 against New Relic
Scale-constrained021 against Zabbix
Negative107 against Zabbix · 6 against New Relic
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Zabbix and New Relic stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | | | |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | ||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | | |
Zabbix New Relic first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Zabbix on the left and New Relic on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Zabbix and New Relic stood in it.
New Relic first, Zabbix not the choice
2 of 14 modelsZabbix was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashNew Relic alternatives: Better Stack, Grafana, LogicMonitor, Site24x7
Grok 4.1 FastNew Relic alternatives: Datadog, ManageEngine OpManager, Site24x7
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniDatadog alternatives: Dynatrace, Grafana, New Relic
Perplexity SonarPaessler PRTG alternatives: Datadog, ManageEngine OpManager, New Relic, Site24x7, Zabbix
DeepSeek V4 FlashSite24x7 alternatives: Grafana Stack, ManageEngine OpManager, New Relic
Qwen 3.7 FlashDatadog alternatives: Grafana, Middleware.io, Paessler PRTG, Prometheus + Grafana, Zabbix
Kimi K2LogicMonitor alternatives: Better Stack, New Relic, Paessler PRTG, Site24x7
GLM 4.7 FlashXDatadog, Grafana alternatives: Dynatrace, ManageEngine OpManager, New Relic
GPT-6 LunaDatadog alternatives: Grafana, New Relic
Muse Glimmer 30BDatadog alternatives: LogicMonitor, ManageEngine OpManager, Paessler PRTG, Prometheus + Grafana, Site24x7, Zabbix
Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice
Mistral SmallManageEngine OpManager, Site24x7 alternatives: Netdata
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
MiniMax M2.5Datadog alternatives: ManageEngine OpManager, Prometheus + Grafana, Sematext
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: New Relic leads at enterprise.
New Relic6%#4 of 14Zabbix4%#6 of 14What the models said about Zabbix
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“Avoid Nagios and raw Zabbix if you value speed and ease-of-use over granular control.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid Zabbix if you need modern UI and simplicity, as its user interface feels dated.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · hard negative
“Zabbix – best all-in-one for traditional infrastructure ... Need one install with UI, alerting and auto-discovery and minimal ops overhead → Zabbix.” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about New Relic
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.
“Avoid SaaS like Datadog/New Relic (start at $15+/host/month, costs explode)” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · hard negative
“Offers a simpler pricing model than Datadog... strong, unified platform that is often much easier to budget for at a 500-person scale.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
Also compared
Datadog vs ZabbixDatadog vs New RelicZabbix vs ManageEngine OpManagerZabbix vs Site24x7Zabbix vs GrafanaZabbix vs Paessler PRTGZabbix vs PrometheusNew Relic vs ManageEngine OpManagerNew Relic vs Site24x7New Relic vs GrafanaNew Relic vs Paessler PRTGNew Relic vs PrometheusAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full infra monitoring standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.