IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Atatus · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Atatus

9Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Atatus was named 4 times in APM, where New Relic led with 54%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business16 of 58

under the label threshold

Mid-market16 of 70

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In apm · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Atatus 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%	16 of 70	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 54%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained5 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative9 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.

“In the $50–$200/month range, Atatus provides the best coverage with APM, infrastructure, logs, and RUM included.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · APM · budget prompt · alternative

“Other affordable options include Atatus, CubeAPM, and ToolRadar.” Llama 4 Maverick · APM · budget prompt · alternative

“Atatus runs ~$150–$300/month for a 10-host setup” Kimi K2 · APM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Atatus — Best Simple Low-Cost SaaS” DeepSeek V4 Flash · APM · budget 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Atatus, over the 9 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Atatus was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

New Relic8 of 95Not in the top three

Datadog6 of 90Not in the top three

Grafana5 of 90Not in the top three

SigNoz4 of 92Not in the top three

Prometheus4 of 90Not in the top three

Sentry3 of 90Not in the top three

Scout APM2 of 91Not in the top three

Dynatrace2 of 90Not in the top three

Scouter2 of 90Not in the top three

Site24x72 of 90Not 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 Atatus. 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 9 of the 9 answers that named Atatus and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

atatus.comYour site9

drizz.dev4

g2.com4

manageengine.com4

openobserve.ai4

cubeapm.com3

instatus.com3

newrelic.com3

augmentcode.com2

betterstack.com2

Twenty-nine of the thirty-eight domain citations in answers naming Atatus came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

atatus.com/guides/cheapest-apm-solutions6

atatus.com/guides/best-apm-tools-for-startups4

drizz.dev/post/apm-tools4

atatus.com/guides/most-affordable-monitoring-tools3

cubeapm.com/blog/top-apm-tools-features-pricing-usecases3

instatus.com/blog/apm-tools3

newrelic.com/blog/apm/application-performance-monitoring-tools3

g2.com/categories/application-performance-monitoring-apm2

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 Atatus'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 Atatus, 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 atatus.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.