IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Highlight.io · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Highlight.io

18Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

5 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

9 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Highlight.io was named 9 times in Error monitoring and 1 other category, where Sentry led with 82%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business8 of 37

under the label threshold

Mid-market22 of 44

under the label threshold

Enterprise33 of 45

under the label threshold

In error monitoring · 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 Highlight.io 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
Error and crash monitoring	Developer platform	0%	22 of 44	29%	7	under 10 labels · led by Sentry at 82%
Application performance monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	25 of 70	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 54%

Movement

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative18 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.

“Sentry / Highlight: Traditionally error-tracking tools, they have evolved into very capable, developer-friendly APMs” Gemini 3.5 Flash · APM · scale prompt · alternative

“Choose Highlight.io if you are a frontend-heavy team that wants a modern, open-source tool” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

“LogRocket / Highlight.io: If your product is highly visual and frontend-heavy” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Error monitoring · scale prompt · alternative

“Cost-predictable SaaS | Grafana Cloud, Highlight.io” 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.

“Highlight.io (Being Shut Down) - Sunset on February 28, 2026 after LaunchDarkly acquisition” Kimi K2 · Error monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid recently acquired/shutting-down tools like Highlight.io and Errorception.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Error monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Highlight.io, over the 18 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Highlight.io was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Sentry17 of 1812Not in the top three

Rollbar13 of 180Not in the top three

Bugsnag12 of 180Not in the top three

Honeybadger11 of 182Not in the top three

Datadog10 of 180Not in the top three

New Relic8 of 180Not in the top three

GlitchTip6 of 181Not in the top three

Dynatrace5 of 180Not in the top three

LogRocket5 of 180Not in the top three

Airbrake4 of 180Not 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 Highlight.io. 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 9 of the 18 answers that named Highlight.io and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

scoutapm.com8

getlogwise.com5

apistatuscheck.com4

ones.com4

radartrek.com4

raygun.com4

rollbar.com4

stackfyi.com4

cubeapm.com3

devopsboys.com3

Forty-three of the forty-three domain citations in answers naming Highlight.io came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

scoutapm.com/blog/best-error-monitoring-tools8

apistatuscheck.com/blog/best-error-tracking-tools-20264

getlogwise.com/blog/best-error-monitoring-tools-20254

ones.com/blog/error-reporting-software-comparison-8-tools-worth-trying4

radartrek.com/error-monitoring4

raygun.com/blog/best-error-monitoring-tools4

rollbar.com/blog/best-error-monitoring-tools4

stackfyi.com/guides/error-tracking-sentry-vs-rollbar-vs-bugsnag-20264

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Highlight.io

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

Highlight 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 Highlight.io'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 Highlight.io, 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 highlightio.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.