Every category where a model named Chronosphere 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
Observability platforms	IT operations and endpoint	0%	16 of 63	11%	9	under 10 labels · led by Grafana at 29%
Infrastructure monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	29 of 65	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Site24x7 at 24%

Movement

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

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative5 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative28 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 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.

“Emerging as a leader, especially for teams needing scalable, cost-effective observability solutions.” Mistral Small · Observability · comparative prompt · alternative

“Chronosphere excels at analyzing your telemetry stream before it is ingested and stored.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Observability · comparative prompt · alternative

“Open Standards & Managed SaaS | Grafana Cloud, Logz.io, Chronosphere” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra 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.

“no public pricing and relies on sales-led discussions, which reduces predictability” Perplexity Sonar · Observability · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Chronosphere, over the 28 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Chronosphere was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog27 of 2811Not in the top three

New Relic26 of 280Not in the top three

Dynatrace24 of 286Not in the top three

Grafana14 of 281Not in the top three

Honeycomb10 of 280Not in the top three

Splunk10 of 280Not in the top three

Grafana Labs8 of 280Not in the top three

Splunk Observability Cloud8 of 280Not in the top three

Elastic Observability6 of 280Not in the top three

Prometheus5 of 280Not 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 Chronosphere. 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 19 of the 28 answers that named Chronosphere and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com14

augmentcode.com10

toolradar.com10

coralogix.com9

openobserve.ai8

metoro.io7

ir.com6

aimultiple.com5

cribl.io5

groundcover.com5

Seventy-nine of the seventy-nine domain citations in answers naming Chronosphere came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/observability-platforms12

augmentcode.com/tools/best-observability-platforms10

toolradar.com/guides/best-observability-platforms10

coralogix.com/guides/observability/observability-platforms7

ir.com/guides/top-observability-tools-comparison-2026-smbs-vs-enterprise-platforms6

openobserve.ai/blog/top-10-observability-platforms6

aimultiple.com/observability-software5

metoro.io/blog/enterprise-observability-tools5

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 Chronosphere'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 Chronosphere, 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 chronosphere.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.