Every category where a model named Coralogix 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
Log management	IT operations and endpoint	2%	11 of 59	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 20%
Observability platforms	IT operations and endpoint	0%	15 of 63	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by Grafana at 29%
Application performance monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	38 of 70	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 54%
Infrastructure monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	31 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 Coralogix 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 Coralogix across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	1	1	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	2	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	0	2
Kimi K2	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	1	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	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

Direct6 labels1

Paraphrase7 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained11 labels4

Scale-constrained8 labelsNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative46 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 5 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.

“Best Overall for Cost Control & Compliance: Coralogix” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Logs · direct prompt · first choice

“The Cost-Control King: Coralogix ... Best for: Mid-market companies that are seeing massive data volume growth” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Observability · direct prompt · alternative

“Look for platforms that offer stream processing or data reduction (e.g., Coralogix or Better Stack)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Logs · negative prompt · alternative

“Splunk alternatives like Coralogix (per-GB ingested, no host/user fees)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Logs · negative 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 Coralogix, over the 46 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Coralogix was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog25 of 468Not in the top three

Splunk23 of 463Not in the top three

New Relic22 of 464Not in the top three

Datadog Log Management20 of 463Not in the top three

Dynatrace18 of 462Not in the top three

Elastic Stack18 of 461Not in the top three

Grafana Loki15 of 463Not in the top three

Grafana14 of 463Not in the top three

OpenObserve13 of 460Not in the top three

New Relic Logs11 of 460Not 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 Coralogix. 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 33 of the 46 answers that named Coralogix and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

coralogix.comYour site28

openobserve.ai20

toolradar.com18

cubeapm.com17

motadata.com15

gartner.com14

groundcover.com11

cribl.io9

dash0.com9

logz.io9

122 of the 150 domain citations in answers naming Coralogix came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

coralogix.com/guides/observability/observability-platforms14

cubeapm.com/blog/top-log-management-tools9

gartner.com/reviews/market/observability-platforms9

motadata.com/blog/observability-tools8

cribl.io/resources/comparison-guides/top-10-log-collection-and-analysis-platforms7

ir.com/guides/top-observability-tools-comparison-2026-smbs-vs-enterprise-platforms7

learn.g2.com/best-log-monitoring-software7

openobserve.ai/blog/top-10-observability-platforms7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Coralogix

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

Mezmo/Coralogix 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 Coralogix'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 Coralogix, 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 coralogix.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.