Every category where a model named AppDynamics 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
Application performance monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	15 of 70	27%	26	criticized challenger
Infrastructure monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	46 of 65	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Site24x7 at 24%
Error and crash monitoring	Developer platform	0%	32 of 44	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Sentry at 82%
Log management	IT operations and endpoint	0%	46 of 59	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 20%
Observability platforms	IT operations and endpoint	0%	41 of 63	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Grafana at 29%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AppDynamics 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 AppDynamics 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	2	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	3	0	0	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	4	1	5
Mistral Small	0	2	2	4
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	2	0	3	5
Kimi K2	1	0	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	2	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	0	2

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

Direct11 labelsNone

Paraphrase10 labels1

Comparative29 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained14 labelsNone

Negative37 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative108 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“It remains a premier choice for traditional three-tier architectures, legacy systems, and SAP deployments.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · APM · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best For: Enterprises already using Splunk for log management or those with heavy Java/.NET workloads.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · APM · comparative prompt · alternative

“worth considering if you're already in the Cisco ecosystem or have a large Java-heavy estate” GPT-5.4 mini · APM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“If you already run Cisco or Splunk, AppDynamics (now Splunk APM) is a natural fit.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · APM · direct 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.

“Scalability issues - doesn't scale well; requires multiple controllers that don't communicate” Kimi K2 · APM · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid Broadcom DX and legacy Splunk/CA tools if you value modern UX.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · APM · negative prompt · hard negative

“Some tools, like older versions of AppDynamics, have user interfaces that rely on outdated technologies (e.g., Flash) or are overly complex” Mistral Small · APM · negative prompt · soft negative

“often criticized for "Sales-driven" implementation... small-to-mid-sized startups often find the sales overhead and rigidity frustrating” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Error monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AppDynamics, over the 108 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AppDynamics was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Dynatrace99 of 10823Not in the top three

Datadog97 of 10831Not in the top three

New Relic90 of 10819Not in the top three

SigNoz28 of 1082Not in the top three

Grafana Cloud26 of 1082Not in the top three

Elastic APM23 of 1081Not in the top three

Sentry22 of 1082Not in the top three

IBM Instana21 of 1080Not in the top three

Prometheus19 of 1080Not in the top three

Grafana17 of 1081Not 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 AppDynamics. 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 89 of the 108 answers that named AppDynamics and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

newrelic.com55

cubeapm.com30

g2.com30

openobserve.ai30

ardura.consulting29

reveillesoftware.com29

rollbar.com25

motadata.com23

instatus.com22

performance.qa22

295 of the 295 domain citations in answers naming AppDynamics came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

newrelic.com/blog/apm/application-performance-monitoring-tools30

ardura.consulting/blog/apm-tools-comparison-202629

reveillesoftware.com/blog/blog/14-best-application-performance-monitoring-apm-tools-202429

cubeapm.com/blog/top-apm-tools-features-pricing-usecases25

rollbar.com/blog/best-apm-tools24

openobserve.ai/blog/top-10-apm-tools23

instatus.com/blog/apm-tools22

performance.qa/blog/datadog-vs-new-relic-vs-dynatrace-vs-appdynamics21

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as AppDynamics

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as AppDynamics; a claim can dispute any of them.

Splunk AppDynamics 6AppDynamics (Cisco) 3AppDynamics (Cisco/Splunk) 1AppDynamics (Splunk) 1AppDynamics (now Splunk APM) 1AppDynamics (now Splunk) 1Splunk AppDynamics (Cisco) 1

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 AppDynamics'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 AppDynamics, 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 appdynamics.com 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.