Index › Vendors › Log4j 1.x · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Log4j 1.x

1Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

1 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Log4j 1.x was named 1 time in Logs, where Datadog Log Management led with 20%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market55 of 59

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In logs · 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 Log4j 1.x 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
Log management	IT operations and endpoint	0%	55 of 59	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 20%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Log4j 1.x 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 Log4j 1.x across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“reached end-of-life in 2015 and is no longer supported... you should migrate to Log4j 2.x.” MiniMax M2.5 · Logs · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Log4j 1.x, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Log4j 1.x was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CrowdStrike Falcon LogScale1 of 10Not in the top three

Datadog Log Management1 of 10Not in the top three

Graylog1 of 10Not in the top three

Sumo Logic1 of 10Not 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 Log4j 1.x. 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 1 of the 1 answers that named Log4j 1.x and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

betterstack.com1

chaossearch.io1

coralogix.com1

docs.datadoghq.com1

exabeam.com1

feedly.com1

logging.apache.org1

logz.io1

netwitness.com1

nhimg.org1

No domain is on file for Log4j 1.x, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

betterstack.com/community/comparisons/datadog-vs-sumologic1

chaossearch.io/blog/top-log-management-mistakes1

coralogix.com/blog/log-management-challenges1

docs.datadoghq.com/integrations/sumo-logic1

docs.datadoghq.com/logs1

docs.datadoghq.com/monitors/types/log1

docs.datadoghq.com/serverless/guide/serverless_warnings1

exabeam.com/explainers/log-management/top-6-log-management-tools-and-how-to-choose1

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 Log4j 1.x'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 Log4j 1.x, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.