AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › IT operations and endpoint › Observability › SigNoz vs Prometheus
Observability platforms · October 2026 Edition

SigNoz vs Prometheus

Zero of fourteen models named SigNoz first on the direct prompt; zero named Prometheus. SigNoz was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Prometheus by ten and SigNoz carries 20 labels and Prometheus 19, so the shares are not directly comparable.

SigNoz

accepted challenger

Named in eight categories this edition.

Prometheus

accepted challenger

Named in seven categories this edition.

First-choice share8%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%21%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#8A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels2019A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, SigNoz reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.New Relic was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Grafana vs SigNoz · Grafana vs Prometheus · New Relic vs SigNoz

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

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
SigNozFirst choices, of fourteen modelsPrometheus
Direct00
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained511 against SigNoz · 1 against Prometheus
Scale-constrained001 against Prometheus
Negative012 against Prometheus
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 SigNoz and Prometheus stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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
SigNoz Prometheus first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, SigNoz on the left and Prometheus on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where SigNoz and Prometheus stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

1 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Kimi K2New Relic alternatives: Grafana, SigNoz

Neither was named

13 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5New Relic alternatives: Atatus, Datadog, Elastic Observability, Grafana, Grafana Labs' LGTM+ stack, Motadata ObserveOps
GPT-5.4 miniNew Relic alternatives: Dynatrace, Grafana
Gemini 3.5 FlashHoneycomb alternatives: Grafana, New Relic
Perplexity SonarDatadog alternatives: Coralogix, Middleware.io, Motadata ObserveOps, OpenObserve
Grok 4.1 FastNew Relic alternatives: Datadog, Dynatrace, Grafana Labs
Mistral SmallGrafana, New Relic alternatives: Middleware.io, OpenObserve
DeepSeek V4 FlashNew Relic alternatives: Elastic Observability, Grafana
Llama 4 MaverickNew Relic alternatives: Datadog, Motadata ObserveOps
Qwen 3.7 FlashGrafana, New Relic
GLM 4.7 FlashXNew Relic alternatives: Datadog, Grafana + Prometheus, Splunk Observability Cloud
MiniMax M2.5Datadog, Grafana Labs alternatives: Dynatrace
GPT-6 LunaDatadog alternatives: Grafana, Honeycomb, New Relic
Muse Glimmer 30BDatadog alternatives: Atatus, Middleware.io, New Relic, OpenObserve, 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
SigNoz leads by ten points.
SigNoz11%#3 of 12
Prometheus2%#10 of 12
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
SigNoz leads by six points.
SigNoz8%#4 of 12
Prometheus2%#8 of 12
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
SigNoz leads by two points.
SigNoz2%#– of 10
Prometheus0%#– of 10
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about SigNoz

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.

“managing a ClickHouse cluster in production requires active maintenance, upgrades, and schema knowledge—which can become a "hidden" operational cost” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“SigNoz is recommended for cost-conscious startups, as it provides traces, logs, and metrics in one place without per-host or per-seat pricing” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“or SigNoz self-hosted if you have infrastructure capacity and want complete control with no licensing fees” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Prometheus

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.

“Best zero‑cost solution: Deploy Prometheus + Grafana + Loki + Jaeger yourself on a cheap VM.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared

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.