IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Azure Monitor Application Insights · September 2026 Edition

Azure · 1 category · Named, not ranked

Azure Monitor Application Insights

6Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

6 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Azure Monitor Application Insights was named 2 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 businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market63 of 70

under the label threshold

Enterprise19 of 58

under the label threshold

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 Azure Monitor Application Insights 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%	63 of 70	50%	2	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 Azure Monitor Application Insights 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 Azure Monitor Application Insights across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.

“For Microsoft shops: Azure Monitor Application Insights” GLM 4.7 FlashX · APM · 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.

“Avoid for anything beyond basic Azure-specific metrics.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · APM · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Azure Monitor Application Insights, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Azure Monitor Application Insights was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Dynatrace6 of 62Not in the top three

AppDynamics6 of 60Not in the top three

New Relic6 of 60Not in the top three

Datadog5 of 63Not in the top three

Grafana Cloud5 of 60Not in the top three

IBM Instana5 of 60Not in the top three

Elastic Observability3 of 60Not in the top three

Elastic APM2 of 60Not in the top three

ManageEngine Applications Manager2 of 60Not in the top three

SolarWinds Observability2 of 60Not 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 Azure Monitor Application Insights. 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 6 of the 6 answers that named Azure Monitor Application Insights and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

reveillesoftware.com5

rollbar.com4

g2.com3

openobserve.ai3

toolradar.com3

ardura.consulting2

augmentcode.com2

blazemeter.com2

buzzclan.com2

cubeapm.com2

Twenty-eight of the twenty-eight domain citations in answers naming Azure Monitor Application Insights came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

reveillesoftware.com/blog/blog/14-best-application-performance-monitoring-apm-tools-20245

rollbar.com/blog/best-apm-tools4

openobserve.ai/blog/top-10-apm-tools3

toolradar.com/guides/best-application-monitoring-tools3

ardura.consulting/blog/apm-tools-comparison-20262

augmentcode.com/tools/best-apm-tools2

blazemeter.com/blog/apm-tools-comparison2

buzzclan.com/digital-transformation/apm-tools2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Azure Monitor Application Insights

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

Azure Monitor / Application Insights 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 Azure Monitor Application Insights'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 Azure Monitor Application Insights, 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 azure.cn 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.