IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Icinga · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Icinga

11Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

7 of 12Models named it

1Category

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

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Icinga was named 5 times in Infra monitoring, where Site24x7 led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business58 of 62

under the label threshold

Mid-market22 of 65

under the label threshold

Enterprise17 of 66

under the label threshold

In infra 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 Icinga 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
Infrastructure monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	22 of 65	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Site24x7 at 24%

Movement

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

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

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative11 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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 Icinga, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Icinga was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Zabbix10 of 111Not in the top three

Datadog9 of 114Not in the top three

Nagios9 of 110Not in the top three

New Relic9 of 110Not in the top three

Prometheus7 of 111Not in the top three

Dynatrace7 of 110Not in the top three

Grafana7 of 110Not in the top three

Site24x76 of 110Not in the top three

Netdata5 of 112Not in the top three

Paessler PRTG3 of 111Not 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 Icinga. 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 10 of the 11 answers that named Icinga and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

netdata.cloud9

gartner.com7

motadata.com7

middleware.io6

instatus.com5

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com4

betterstack.com3

comparitech.com3

dash0.com3

blog.domotz.com2

Forty-nine of the forty-nine domain citations in answers naming Icinga came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

netdata.cloud/resources/best-infrastructure-monitoring-tools9

gartner.com/reviews/market/infrastructure-monitoring-tools7

motadata.com/blog/best-it-infrastructure-monitoring-tools7

middleware.io/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools6

instatus.com/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools5

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/tools/top-7-open-source-infrastructure-monitoring-too3

comparitech.com/net-admin/infrastructure-monitoring3

dash0.com/comparisons/infrastructure-monitoring-tools3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Icinga

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

Checkmk / Nagios / Icinga 1Icinga 2 1Icinga/Nagios XI 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 Icinga'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 Icinga, 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 icinga.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.