| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT service management | IT operations and endpoint | 12% | 2 of 69 | 8% | 64 | accepted challenger | ▼−11Since September 2026: 21% → 10%, −11 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Incident management and on-call | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 16 of 65 | 20% | 25 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| AI IT support agents | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 33 of 121 | 0% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by Freshservice with Freddy AI at 11% | |
| IT documentation | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 29 of 92 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Hudu at 17% | |
| IT asset management | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 17 of 82 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Freshservice at 31% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| IT financial management | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 59 of 159 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Nicus ITFM Platform at 9% | |
| AIOps platforms | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 65 of 93 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 17% | |
| Cyber risk quantification | Security operations | 0% | 90 of 116 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by CyberSaint CyberStrong at 25% | |
| Digital employee experience | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 169 of 219 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by ControlUp at 13% |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITSM | 21% | 10% | ▼−11Since September 2026: 21% → 10%, −11 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 of 69, unchanged |
| Incidents | 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 14 → 16 of 65 |
| AI IT agents | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 33 of 121, unchanged |
| IT documentation | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 29 of 92, unchanged |
| ITAM | 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 20 → 17 of 82 |
| IT financial mgmt | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 59 of 159, unchanged |
| AIOps | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 65 of 93, unchanged |
| Cyber risk quant | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 90 of 116, unchanged |
| DEX | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 169 of 219, 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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 10 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“The two most prominent contenders for this segment are Freshservice and Atlassian\u2019s Jira Service Management (JSM)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · ITSM · direct prompt · first choice
“Freshservice and Jira Service Management often hit the sweet spot for mid-market B2B companies” MiniMax M2.5 · ITSM · direct prompt · first choice
“Best overall for a limited budget: Start with Jira Service Management (free up to 10 agents)” MiniMax M2.5 · ITSM · budget prompt · first choice
“Do you have 1 to 3 IT agents? Go with Jira Service Management (Free tier).” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ITSM · budget prompt · first choice
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.
“the main platforms to be cautious about are Opsgenie, Jira Service Management... warn that its ITSM complexity can slow incident response” Perplexity Sonar · Incidents · negative prompt · hard negative
“good fit for Atlassian-centric teams, but the listed drawbacks are limited mobile functionality, complex setup for beginners, and expensive higher-tier plans” Perplexity Sonar · ITSM · negative prompt · soft negative
“If you try to run JSM as a standalone ITSM tool in a non-developer-heavy organization, it often feels clunky and disconnected.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ITSM · negative prompt · soft negative
“moving to Jira Service Management) is often a poor fit for real-time incident response because JSM is a ticketing system” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Incidents · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 292 of the 316 answers that named Jira Service Management and are not a share of its labels.
713 of the 777 domain citations in answers naming Jira Service Management came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
What Jira Service Management's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: atlassian.com, atlassian.com/software/jira/pricing, trust.atlassian.com, atlassian.com/platform, atlassian.com/customers. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Jira Service Management'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 Jira Service Management, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Jira Service Management by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
Jira Service Management is among the products AI models recommend first in IT service management 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.
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.