Every category where a model named LogicMonitor 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	2%	8 of 65	0%	15	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for LogicMonitor 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 LogicMonitor 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	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	3	0	3
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	3	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	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

Direct8 labels2

Paraphrase5 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“the best *default* choice is usually LogicMonitor” Perplexity Sonar · Infra monitoring · direct prompt · first choice

“LogicMonitor is a SaaS observability platform covering network, server, cloud, and application monitoring” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Infra monitoring · direct prompt · alternative

“LogicMonitor or Zabbix are far better suited to understand hardware-level telemetry.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

“LogicMonitor is the industry favorite for mid-market IT teams” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra monitoring · direct prompt · alternative

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 LogicMonitor, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and LogicMonitor was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog20 of 258Not in the top three

New Relic18 of 253Not in the top three

Dynatrace16 of 255Not in the top three

Site24x714 of 254Not in the top three

Zabbix10 of 250Not in the top three

Prometheus + Grafana9 of 252Not in the top three

Netdata8 of 251Not in the top three

Paessler PRTG7 of 250Not in the top three

Grafana5 of 251Not in the top three

Prometheus5 of 251Not 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 LogicMonitor. 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 22 of the 25 answers that named LogicMonitor and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com18

netdata.cloud16

middleware.io15

motadata.com11

learn.g2.com9

newrelic.com9

blog.domotz.com8

instatus.com8

gartsolutions.com7

uptrace.dev7

108 of the 108 domain citations in answers naming LogicMonitor came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/infrastructure-monitoring-tools18

netdata.cloud/resources/best-infrastructure-monitoring-tools16

middleware.io/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools14

motadata.com/blog/best-it-infrastructure-monitoring-tools11

learn.g2.com/cloud-monitoring-tools9

instatus.com/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools8

blog.domotz.com/all/best-it-infrastructure-monitoring-tools7

gartsolutions.com/best-it-infrastructure-monitoring-software7

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 LogicMonitor'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 LogicMonitor, 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 logicmonitor.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.