IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › groundcover · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

groundcover

16Judge labels

8First choices

0Negative labels

10 of 12Models named it

2Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. groundcover was named 4 times in APM and 1 other category, where New Relic led with 54%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market28 of 70

under the label threshold

Enterprise34 of 58

under the label threshold

In apm · 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 groundcover 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%	28 of 70	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 54%
Observability platforms	IT operations and endpoint	0%	39 of 63	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Grafana at 29%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for groundcover 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 groundcover across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained10 labels8

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative16 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.

“Look for pod-based or eBPF-native pricing (e.g., Groundcover, Pixie)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · APM · negative prompt · alternative

“OpenTelemetry-based | Coralogix, Honeycomb, SigNoz, Groundcover” Kimi K2 · APM · 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 groundcover, over the 16 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and groundcover was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog14 of 160Not in the top three

New Relic13 of 162Not in the top three

Dynatrace9 of 160Not in the top three

Grafana6 of 161Not in the top three

Coralogix5 of 161Not in the top three

CubeAPM3 of 160Not in the top three

Honeycomb3 of 160Not in the top three

SigNoz3 of 160Not in the top three

Splunk3 of 160Not in the top three

Chronosphere2 of 160Not 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 groundcover. 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 15 of the 16 answers that named groundcover and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

groundcover.comYour site14

coralogix.com10

cubeapm.com8

openobserve.ai7

techvendorindex.com7

toolradar.com6

vendorbenchmark.com6

metoro.io5

uptrace.dev5

betterstack.com4

Fifty-eight of the seventy-two domain citations in answers naming groundcover came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

groundcover.com/guides/observability-platforms-cost-predictability9

coralogix.com/guides/observability/observability-platforms8

techvendorindex.com/compare/best-observability-for-enterprise7

groundcover.com/learn/cost-optimization/observability-platforms-cost-predictability6

vendorbenchmark.com/blog/observability-platform-pricing-benchmark-comparison5

metoro.io/blog/enterprise-observability-tools4

uptrace.dev/comparisons/observability-tools-pricing4

ardura.consulting/blog/apm-tools-comparison-20263

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as groundcover

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

Groundcover 2

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 groundcover'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 groundcover, 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 groundcover.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.