Every category where a model named Airbrake 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
Error and crash monitoring	Developer platform	0%	11 of 44	30%	10	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Airbrake 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 Airbrake across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	1	0	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	1

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

Direct5 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative20 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative35 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Best For: Small-to-medium businesses (SMBs) and non-engineering stakeholders who need simple insights.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

“Known for simpler, release-aware exception monitoring and API-driven workflows.” Perplexity Sonar · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

“Airbrake: Simpler, flat-rate pricing for teams new to error monitoring.” MiniMax M2.5 · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

“Choose Honeybadger or Airbrake if you run a small web agency or startup” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

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.

“Users report slower feature velocity and a UI that has not kept up with modern competitors like Sentry.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Error monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

“generally seen as more niche or simpler alternatives compared to Rollbar and Scout” Mistral Small · Error monitoring · direct prompt · soft negative

“Considerations: Less feature-rich than competitors” Kimi K2 · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Airbrake, over the 35 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Airbrake was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Sentry33 of 3524Not in the top three

Rollbar29 of 353Not in the top three

Bugsnag26 of 350Not in the top three

Honeybadger23 of 355Not in the top three

Raygun16 of 350Not in the top three

Datadog15 of 351Not in the top three

New Relic14 of 351Not in the top three

LogRocket13 of 350Not in the top three

GlitchTip7 of 351Not in the top three

Datadog Error Tracking4 of 351Not 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 Airbrake. 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 32 of the 35 answers that named Airbrake and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

scoutapm.com25

worldmetrics.org22

rollbar.com19

observeone.com13

debugg.ai12

radartrek.com12

raygun.com12

ones.com11

guideflow.com10

apistatuscheck.com9

145 of the 145 domain citations in answers naming Airbrake came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

scoutapm.com/blog/best-error-monitoring-tools23

worldmetrics.org/best/error-monitoring-software22

rollbar.com/blog/best-error-monitoring-tools17

observeone.com/best/error-monitoring-tools13

debugg.ai/resources/best-error-monitoring-tools-202412

radartrek.com/error-monitoring12

raygun.com/blog/best-error-monitoring-tools12

guideflow.com/blog/error-monitoring-software10

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 Airbrake'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 Airbrake, 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 airbrake.io 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.