Every category where a model named FireHydrant 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
Incident management and on-call	IT operations and endpoint	0%	16 of 53	18%	17	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Direct9 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative16 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained10 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative49 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.

“FireHydrant is a good fit for teams that want to standardize their incident response process.” Mistral Small · Incidents · comparative prompt · alternative

“Centers workflow on runbooks and automation, strong workflow customization” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Incidents · comparative prompt · alternative

“Need process standardization + incident management → FireHydrant” GPT-5.4 mini · Incidents · comparative prompt · alternative

“Need runbooks + strong post-incident learning | FireHydrant” Kimi K2 · Incidents · 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.

“acquired by Freshworks in late 2025. If you evaluate them, check how their licensing, roadmap, and standalone support are evolving” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Incidents · scale prompt · soft negative

“Good option, but review data suggests incident.io is generally rated higher by mid-market users.” GPT-5.4 mini · Incidents · direct prompt · soft negative

“you should watch out for shifting pricing tiers, potential migration pressure down the line” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Incidents · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as FireHydrant, over the 49 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and FireHydrant was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PagerDuty49 of 4911Not in the top three

incident.io41 of 4922Not in the top three

Rootly38 of 493Not in the top three

Opsgenie32 of 493Not in the top three

Jira Service Management21 of 490Not in the top three

Grafana IRM17 of 491Not in the top three

Squadcast17 of 491Not in the top three

Better Stack14 of 492Not in the top three

Splunk On-Call13 of 490Not in the top three

ServiceNow10 of 490Not 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 FireHydrant. 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 49 answers that named FireHydrant and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

rootly.com24

incident.io23

monday.com20

hyperping.com19

augmentcode.com15

complyjet.com13

xurrent.com13

guideflow.com11

pagerduty.com11

zendesk.com9

158 of the 158 domain citations in answers naming FireHydrant came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

monday.com/blog/service/incident-management-software20

hyperping.com/blog/best-incident-management-tools17

augmentcode.com/tools/best-incident-management-software15

complyjet.com/blog/best-incident-management-software13

xurrent.com/blog/top-incident-management-software12

guideflow.com/blog/incident-management-software10

rootly.com/blog/15-best-incident-response-software-platforms-for-modern-engineering-teams-9

zendesk.com/service/help-desk-software/incident-management-software9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as FireHydrant

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

Firehydrant 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 FireHydrant'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 FireHydrant, 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 firehydrant.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.