Every category where a model named Hyperping 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	8%	5 of 53	0%	14	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	2	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	3	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	2	1	0	3

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

Direct10 labels2

Paraphrase14 labels4

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained17 labels6

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative48 labels in all, every segment counted; 12 of the 12 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.

“I'd recommend starting with incident.io if you're Slack-centric, or Hyperping if you want flat-rate pricing with monitoring included” MiniMax M2.5 · Incidents · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Recommended for mid-size companies (10 to 50 people) due to its flat-rate pricing and simplicity” Mistral Small · Incidents · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Better Uptime or Hyperping (for managed service with free tiers)” MiniMax M2.5 · Incidents · budget prompt · first choice

“Squadcast and Hyperping are top recommendations for small teams and SMBs” Mistral Small · Incidents · budget prompt · first choice

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 Hyperping, over the 48 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Hyperping was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PagerDuty37 of 483Not in the top three

incident.io34 of 4811Not in the top three

Squadcast25 of 486Not in the top three

Better Stack25 of 485Not in the top three

Rootly21 of 483Not in the top three

Opsgenie9 of 480Not in the top three

Grafana IRM8 of 480Not in the top three

Spike.sh7 of 481Not in the top three

FireHydrant6 of 480Not in the top three

Freshservice6 of 480Not 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 Hyperping. 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 46 of the 48 answers that named Hyperping and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

hyperping.comYour site46

guideflow.com24

monday.com24

incident.io23

rootly.com17

xurrent.com16

g2.com14

instatus.com13

complyjet.com12

augmentcode.com11

154 of the 200 domain citations in answers naming Hyperping came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

hyperping.com/blog/best-incident-management-tools33

monday.com/blog/service/incident-management-software24

hyperping.com/blog/best-oncall-scheduling-tools15

complyjet.com/blog/best-incident-management-software12

guideflow.com/blog/incident-management-software12

augmentcode.com/tools/best-incident-management-software11

xurrent.com/blog/top-incident-management-software11

runframe.io/comparisons/best-incident-management-tools-for-startups10

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Hyperping

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

Hyperping Pro 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 Hyperping'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 Hyperping, 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 hyperping.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.