Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 8 → 15 of 58
6 categories · RankedHoneycomb
117Judge labels
7First choices
10Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
6Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in APM for mid-market buyers
Rank 9 of 66 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 10 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Honeycomb →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business14 of 60
0%9 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market9 of 66
2%10 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise12 of 59
0%10 labels
accepted challenger
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 Honeycomb 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application performance monitoring | IT operations and endpoint | 2% | 9 of 66 | 0% | 10 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Observability platforms | IT operations and endpoint | 2% | 8 of 80 | 11% | 19 | accepted challenger | ▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Telemetry pipelines | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 22 of 124 | 0% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by OpenTelemetry Collector at 37% | |
| Error and crash monitoring | Developer platform | 0% | 27 of 42 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Sentry at 76% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Infrastructure monitoring | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 31 of 79 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Datadog at 28% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Log management | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 34 of 73 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 28% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Honeycomb held within the floor in all six categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · APM · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 7 → 8 of 60
Enterprise▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 6 → 13 of 57
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observability | 4% | 2% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 5 → 8 of 80 |
| APM | 2% | 2% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 7 → 9 of 66 |
| Telemetry pipelines | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 22 of 124, unchanged |
| Error monitoring | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 22 → 27 of 42 |
| Infra monitoring | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 38 → 31 of 79 |
| Logs | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 34 of 73, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Honeycomb across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Honeycomb across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Direct25 labels4
Paraphrase6 labelsNone
Comparative36 labelsNone
Budget-constrained9 labels1
Scale-constrained23 labels2
Negative18 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative117 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 7 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.
“Go with Honeycomb if you are a B2B SaaS company that suffers from customer-specific performance issues” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Observability · direct prompt · first choice
“The Developer-First / Observability Path (Highly Recommended)... Honeycomb is unmatched.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · APM · scale prompt · first choice
“industry leader for debugging high-cardinality data... though it is more APM-focused than traditional bare-metal/VM infra monitoring” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra monitoring · scale prompt · alternative
“If you are building microservices/serverless and want ultimate flexibility in tracing attributes, choose Honeycomb.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · APM · 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.
“Event-based pricing creates a structural incident risk because volume spikes during production incidents increase costs” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Observability · negative prompt · soft negative
“Using them now carries a "hold my horse" risk.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Observability · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Honeycomb, over the 117 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Honeycomb was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Honeycomb, over the 117 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Honeycomb was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 Honeycomb. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 89 of the 117 answers that named Honeycomb and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
newrelic.com39
honeycomb.ioYour site36
motadata.com29
grafana.com27
openobserve.ai24
middleware.io23
signoz.io21
cubeapm.com20
uptrace.dev19
ir.com18
220 of the 256 domain citations in answers naming Honeycomb came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
honeycomb.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Honeycomb takes 2% of first choices and New Relic takes 46%.ShowHide
Search and answers
honeycomb.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Honeycomb takes 2% of first choices and New Relic takes 46%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “apm tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “apm tools”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 135,000 a month (“honeycomb”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 13,732 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 6,603 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 2,863 · 155 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 4,521
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 9 of 66 in APM
Segment leader
46%
New Relic
- First choices
- 7 across its categories
- Named in
- 117 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 89 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on honeycomb.io
1,826
subdomains included
Content
1,089
counted in the table below
Documentation
539
Product · Integration
26 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 718 | 27 | 2026-09-21 | Observability, Logs | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 78 | 2 | 2026-08-26 | APM, Feature flags | |
| Conference or event | 77 | 13 | 2026-09-25 | ||
| Podcast or video | 73 | 2 | 2026-09-03 | ||
| Case study | 58 | 3 | 2026-08-06 | APM | |
| Report or ebook | 49 | 1 | 2026-07-08 | Observability, APM | |
| Glossary or explainer | 16 | 1 | 2026-08-17 | APM | |
| Comparison | 15 | 3 | 2026-09-08 | Data warehouses, APM | |
| News or press | 4 | 0 | 2026-03-12 | ||
| Template or tool | 1 | 0 | 2024-09-20 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-25Battleshipsforjackhenry conference or event
- 2026-09-21How adaptive tail sampling works blog
- 2026-09-14How canvas powers ai agent development feedback loop blog
- 2026-09-11Ai in finance fall conference or event
- 2026-09-09Ai norms values part 3 things we hold true blog
- 2026-09-08Wide events vs three pillars ai observability costs comparison
Events in person
Upcoming
- November 30, 2026 to December 3, 2026AWS re:Invent 2026Booth 1871 · exhibits
- December 1, 2026Topgolf with Honeycomb x CloudelligentTopgolf Las Vegas · hosts
- December 2, 2026How Observability Evolved From Dashboards to Agents Writing CodePartner Advantage Zone · speaks
Last twelve months
- October 6, 2026 to October 7, 2026O11yDay LondonConvene Bishopsgate, London · hosted
As the event pages on honeycomb.io state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page honeycomb.io exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Honeycomb
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Honeycomb; a claim can dispute any of them.
Honeycomb (by Splunk) 1Honeycomb.io 1
Follow Honeycomb
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Honeycomb is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Honeycomb is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- AI-Ready Observability Platform
- For
- Engineering teams
- Price stated
- Free, Pro, and Enterprise honeycomb.io/pricing
- Starting price
- 150 honeycomb.io/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Start for free honeycomb.io
- Integrations claimed
- 40 honeycomb.io/platform
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type 2GDPRHIPAAEU-US Data Privacy FrameworkUK Extension to EU-US Data Privacy FrameworkSwiss-US Data Privacy FrameworkSOC 2 Type IICCPA
- Customers named
- SlackIntercomDropboxHomeaglowHiPagesZeta GlobalFenris Creationstastytrade
- Not stated on the pages read
- Hosting
What Honeycomb's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: honeycomb.io, honeycomb.io/pricing, trust.honeycomb.io, honeycomb.io/platform, honeycomb.io/resources/case-studies. A claimed page can correct any of 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 Honeycomb'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 Honeycomb, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Honeycomb by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Honeycomb is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Honeycomb, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.