IT AI Index
Index Vendors › Bugsnag · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Ranked

Bugsnag

122Judge labels
2First choices
19Negative labels
12 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.
Best standing
4% in Error monitoring for enterprise buyers
Rank 5 of 44 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 12 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 17% of its 41 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In error monitoring · 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 Bugsnag 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
Error and crash monitoringDeveloper platform0%5 of 4417%41accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Bugsnag 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 Bugsnag across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.501304
GPT-5.4 mini03014
Gemini 3.5 Flash04015
Perplexity Sonar01113
Grok 4.1 Fast03014
Mistral Small01113
DeepSeek V4 Flash03216
Llama 4 Maverick00101
Qwen 3.7 Flash01001
Kimi K203115
GLM 4.7 FlashX04004
MiniMax M2.501001

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
Direct14 labelsNone
Paraphrase22 labelsNone
Comparative31 labelsNone
Budget-constrained16 labels2
Scale-constrained18 labelsNone
Negative21 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative122 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“Bugsnag if you care a lot about predictable pricing, strong crash reporting, and simple error-first workflows” GPT-5.4 mini · Error monitoring · direct prompt · alternative
“BugSnag is also a very solid choice if your top priorities are: very focused error/crash reporting” GPT-5.4 mini · Error monitoring · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Choose BugSnag if you care most about app stability metrics and release/feature-flag impact.” GPT-5.4 mini · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative
“Bugsnag (by SmartBear): Highly regarded for mobile (iOS/Android) and frontend applications.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Error monitoring · scale 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.

“smaller teams should be cautious: its free tier is strictly limited to a single user, and users frequently report aggressive post-acquisition pricing escalations” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Error monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative
“Bugsnag (SmartBear) - Concern: Now operated by Private Equity ... Outsourced support team, pricing that compounds quickly” Kimi K2 · Error monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative
“Same pattern: per-seat/per-event multipliers create surprise invoices after traffic spikes or marketing campaigns.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Error monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative
“Tiered per-event billing forces upgrades or charges overages; "sticker shock" during bursts common.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Error monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Bugsnag, over the 122 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Bugsnag was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Sentry121 of 12290Not in the top three
Rollbar110 of 1227Not in the top three
Datadog66 of 1223Not in the top three
Honeybadger48 of 1226Not in the top three
New Relic48 of 1222Not in the top three
GlitchTip30 of 1222Not in the top three
Raygun29 of 1220Not in the top three
LogRocket28 of 1220Not in the top three
Airbrake26 of 1220Not in the top three
Datadog Error Tracking17 of 1222Not 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 Bugsnag. 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 95 of the 122 answers that named Bugsnag and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

scoutapm.com60
rollbar.com57
raygun.com40
worldmetrics.org39
guideflow.com36
observeone.com32
sentry.io29
ones.com28
stackfyi.com25
radartrek.com24

370 of the 370 domain citations in answers naming Bugsnag came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Bugsnag

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Bugsnag; a claim can dispute any of them.
BugSnag 3Bugsnag (by SmartBear) 1Bugsnag (now SmartBear Insight Hub) 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 Bugsnag'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 Bugsnag, 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 bugsnag.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.