Small business▲+4Since September 2026: 30% → 34%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
34%from 30% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 1 of 59, unchanged
2 categories · Rankedincident.io
176Judge labels
47First choices
13Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
35% in Incidents for small business buyers
Rank 1 of 65 in the mid-market standingendorsed leader
6 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 5% of its 57 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of incident.io →By buyer segmentStrongest at small business.
Small business1 of 63
35%61 labels
endorsed leader
Mid-market1 of 65
32%57 labels
endorsed leader
Enterprise2 of 44
18%55 labels
accepted challenger
In incidents · 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 incident.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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incident management and on-call | IT operations and endpoint | 32% | 1 of 65 | 5% | 57 | endorsed leader | ▲+5Since September 2026: 25% → 31%, +5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| AIOps platforms | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 57 of 93 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 17% |
Movement
Since September 2026, incident.io held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Incidents · by segment
Mid-market▲+5Since September 2026: 25% → 31%, +5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
31%from 25% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 6 pointsRank 1 of 57, unchanged
Enterprise▼−1Since September 2026: 17% → 16%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
16%from 17% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 2 of 39, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidents | 25% | 31% | ▲+5Since September 2026: 25% → 31%, +5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 65, unchanged |
| AIOps | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 57 of 93, 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 incident.io 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 incident.io 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 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Grok 4.20 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 2 | 1 | 0 | 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
Direct32 labels16
Paraphrase25 labels7
Comparative40 labels13not counted in share
Budget-constrained34 labels16
Scale-constrained21 labels8
Negative24 labels11not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative176 labels in all, every segment counted; 47 of the 71 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.
“Small team ≤5-10 responders and wants zero cost: incident.io free, FireHydrant free up to 10 responders, Better Stack free, or Opsgenie free up to 5 users.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Incidents · budget prompt · first choice
“Choose incident.io if your team is Slack-centric and values speed of implementation, modern UX, and transparent all-in-one pricing.” Kimi K2 · Incidents · direct prompt · first choice
“Highly recommended for mid-market/scale-up companies. It is highly polished, opinionated, runs seamlessly inside Slack/Teams” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Incidents · scale prompt · first choice
“consider end-to-end platforms that are built from the start as complete incident management solutions, such as incident.io.” Llama 4 Maverick · Incidents · negative 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.
“missing features in incident.io, particularly in reporting capabilities and SLA tracking” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Incidents · negative prompt · soft negative
“if your teams don't want incident workflows tied to Slack or Microsoft Teams” GPT-6 Luna · Incidents · negative prompt · soft negative
“Pricing surprises: Costs spike sharply after small-team thresholds” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Incidents · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as incident.io, over the 176 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and incident.io was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as incident.io, over the 176 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and incident.io 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 incident.io. 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 172 of the 176 answers that named incident.io and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
incident.ioYour site125
rootly.com116
motadata.com89
expertinsights.com58
g2.com56
pagerduty.com56
complyjet.com55
hyperping.com53
monday.com52
guideflow.com47
582 of the 707 domain citations in answers naming incident.io came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where incident.io stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where incident.io stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “incident management platform”
2
Position for “incident management platforms”
3
- Searches for its name, Google
- 1,900 a month (“incident.io”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 70 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 65,369 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 2,201 · 149 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 3,042
- Paid Google search
- 1 searches its ads show for, about 10 clicks and $108 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
32%
rank 1 of 65 in incidents
First choices
47
across its categories
- Named in
- 176 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 172 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 incident.io
1,327
subdomains included
Content
706
counted in the table below
Documentation
316
Product · Integration
2 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 540 | 33 | 2026-09-22 | Incidents, ITSM | |
| Comparison | 69 | 5 | 2026-09-01 | Incidents, ITSM | |
| Case study | 33 | 1 | 2026-08-03 | ||
| Report or ebook | 26 | 1 | 2026-07-09 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 14 | 3 | 2026-09-21 | ITSM | |
| News or press | 11 | 0 | 2023-06-07 | ||
| Template or tool | 7 | 1 | 2026-07-09 | ||
| Podcast or video | 6 | 0 | 2023-01-12 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-22Almost excited to get paged blog
- 2026-09-21Ai incident triage blog
- 2026-09-21What is ai incident triage glossary or explainer
- 2026-09-15Ai powered incident detection guide blog
- 2026-09-15Best ai incident detection tools for startups blog
- 2026-09-15How to evaluate ai incident detection vendors blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page incident.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. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as incident.io
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as incident.io; a claim can dispute any of them.
Incident.io 8
Follow incident.io
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
incident.io is its own company.ShowHide
The company
incident.io is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- AI software reliability platform
- For
- teams where downtime isn't an option
- Price stated
- Free; $19 per user / month; $25 per user / month; Let's talk incident.io/pricing
- Starting price
- Free incident.io/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Get started for free incident.io
- Integrations claimed
- 2 incident.io/pricing · 4 incident.io/solution/ai-sre pages disagree
- Certifications
- SOC2 ReportHIPAA CompliantSOC2 Type IISOC 2 compliant
- Customers named
- ZendeskFinLinearAirbnbSquareNetflixEtsySkyscanner
- Not stated on the pages read
- Hosting
What incident.io's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: incident.io, incident.io/pricing, trust.incident.io, incident.io/solution/ai-sre, incident.io/customers. 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 incident.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 incident.io, 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 incident.io by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where incident.io 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 incident.io, 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.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where incident.io is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where incident.io is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideAI models recommend incident.io first in Incident management and on-call this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.