New Relic vs OpenObserve
Nine of fourteen models named New Relic first on the direct prompt; zero named OpenObserve. New Relic was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and OpenObserve by ten and New Relic carries 63 labels and OpenObserve 16, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in eight categories this edition.
Named in seven categories this edition.
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 observability platforms page.
By framing
New RelicFirst choices, of fourteen modelsOpenObserve
Every model, every framing
| 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 | | | | |
New Relic OpenObserve first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, New Relic on the left and OpenObserve on the right.The direct prompt
New Relic first, OpenObserve an alternative
9 of 14 modelsOpenObserve was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
New Relic15%#2 of 12OpenObserve3%#6 of 12New Relic27%#2 of 12OpenObserve5%#5 of 12New Relic12%#3 of 10OpenObserve2%#6 of 10What the models said about New Relic
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“| New Relic/Datadog | SaaS | Limited free | High ($0.35/GB + users) | Avoid for tight budgets |” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · hard negative
“New Relic Why be cautious: - Complex pricing model” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“New Relic is recommended for teams wanting all telemetry types on a single ingest meter with a genuinely useful free tier” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about OpenObserve
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.
“OpenObserve: best overall observability platform, with unified telemetry, no per-host fees, and SQL and PromQL querying” Llama 4 Maverick · scale prompt · first choice
“start with open-source platforms like Grafana, OpenObserve, or Zabbix for maximum cost savings” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
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.