Every category where a model named Logz.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
Log management	IT operations and endpoint	0%	17 of 59	0%	9	under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 20%
Infrastructure monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	41 of 65	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Site24x7 at 24%

Movement

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative9 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative8 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative24 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.

“Logz.io emerges as the strongest option for DevOps and SRE teams seeking a complete, scalable, and easy-to-use platform” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Logs · comparative prompt · first choice

“Open Standards & Managed SaaS | Grafana Cloud, Logz.io, Chronosphere” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra monitoring · scale prompt · alternative

“look at OpenSearch or Logz.io (which runs ELK under the hood)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Logs · negative prompt · alternative

“Managed services ... (e.g., Elastic Cloud, Logz.io)” Kimi K2 · Logs · negative 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 Logz.io, over the 24 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Logz.io was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog Log Management18 of 242Not in the top three

Splunk17 of 242Not in the top three

Elastic Stack15 of 242Not in the top three

Graylog13 of 240Not in the top three

Grafana Loki11 of 241Not in the top three

New Relic Logs10 of 240Not in the top three

OpenObserve10 of 240Not in the top three

Sumo Logic10 of 240Not in the top three

Better Stack7 of 242Not in the top three

Dynatrace6 of 240Not 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 Logz.io. 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 18 of the 24 answers that named Logz.io and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

logz.ioYour site13

openobserve.ai11

toolradar.com11

cribl.io8

dash0.com7

gartner.com7

exabeam.com6

parseable.com6

sherlocks.ai6

cubeapm.com5

Sixty-seven of the eighty domain citations in answers naming Logz.io came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

logz.io/blog/best-log-management-software-2026-29

openobserve.ai/blog/log-management-tools9

dash0.com/comparisons/best-log-management-tools7

toolradar.com/guides/best-log-management-tools7

openobserve.ai/blog/top-10-log-monitoring-tools-20256

sherlocks.ai/discover/best-log-management-software6

exabeam.com/explainers/log-management/top-6-log-management-tools-and-how-to-choose5

gartner.com/reviews/market/log-monitoring-and-analysis-solutions5

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 Logz.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 Logz.io, 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 logz.io 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.