Every category where a model named CubeAPM 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%	19 of 70	17%	6	under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 54%
Error and crash monitoring	Developer platform	0%	15 of 44	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Sentry at 82%
Log management	IT operations and endpoint	0%	39 of 59	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 20%
Observability platforms	IT operations and endpoint	0%	45 of 63	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Grafana at 29%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for CubeAPM 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 CubeAPM 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	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	1	2	0	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained22 labels8

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative5 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative38 labels in all, every segment counted; 8 of the 8 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.

“CubeAPM is best for mid-size to enterprise teams that need compliance, predictable costs, and deep OpenTelemetry integration.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Error monitoring · direct prompt · alternative

“managed hosting like Grafana Cloud or CubeAPM to offset ops burden” Qwen 3.7 Flash · APM · negative prompt · alternative

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

“Best cost-predictable full-stack option: CubeAPM” Perplexity Sonar · 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.

“starting price of $2,080/month for 60 hosts, but this may still be high for very small teams” Mistral Small · APM · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as CubeAPM, over the 38 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CubeAPM was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog23 of 380Not in the top three

New Relic22 of 385Not in the top three

Dynatrace19 of 380Not in the top three

SigNoz11 of 382Not in the top three

Sentry8 of 382Not in the top three

Grafana Cloud8 of 380Not in the top three

Splunk7 of 381Not in the top three

Datadog Log Management6 of 380Not in the top three

AppDynamics5 of 380Not in the top three

Coralogix5 of 380Not 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 CubeAPM. 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 35 of the 38 answers that named CubeAPM and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cubeapm.comYour site35

middleware.io15

toolradar.com12

newrelic.com11

openobserve.ai9

groundcover.com8

manageengine.com7

drizz.dev6

rollbar.com6

scoutapm.com6

Eighty of the 115 domain citations in answers naming CubeAPM came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cubeapm.com/blog/top-apm-tools-features-pricing-usecases14

toolradar.com/guides/best-application-monitoring-tools9

cubeapm.com/blog/enterprise-monitoring-tools8

middleware.io/blog/apm-tools7

cubeapm.com/blog/top-log-management-tools6

drizz.dev/post/apm-tools6

groundcover.com/guides/apm-tools-comparison-engineering-teams6

manageengine.com/it-operations-management/application-observability/apm-tools-comparison.h6

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 CubeAPM'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 CubeAPM, 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 cubeapm.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.