Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 29 → 22 of 58
ManageEngine · 1 category · Named, not rankedManageEngine Applications Manager
11Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
6 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
5 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ManageEngine Applications Manager was named 5 times in APM, where New Relic led with 46%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business23 of 60
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market19 of 66
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise19 of 59
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
In apm · 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 ManageEngine Applications Manager 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application performance monitoring | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 19 of 66 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 46% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, ManageEngine Applications Manager held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · APM · by segment
Mid-market▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 6 → 17 of 60
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 33 → 20 of 57
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APM | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 19 of 66 |
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 ManageEngine Applications Manager 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 ManageEngine Applications Manager 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Paraphrase4 labelsNone
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained4 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative11 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.
“ManageEngine Applications Manager is a better fit if your priority is value, hybrid/on-prem coverage, and lower complexity” Perplexity Sonar · APM · direct prompt · alternative
“Best for traditional/managed IT | ManageEngine Applications Manager | Mid-enterprise positioning and code-level diagnostics” Perplexity Sonar · APM · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Strong Alternative: ManageEngine Applications Manager” GLM 4.7 FlashX · APM · paraphrase 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 ManageEngine Applications Manager, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ManageEngine Applications Manager was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ManageEngine Applications Manager, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ManageEngine Applications Manager 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 ManageEngine Applications Manager. 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 11 of the 11 answers that named ManageEngine Applications Manager and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
g2.com9
motadata.com8
manageengine.comYour site7
middleware.io7
comparitech.com6
guideflow.com6
augmentcode.com5
newrelic.com5
uptrace.dev5
atatus.com4
Fifty-five of the sixty-two domain citations in answers naming ManageEngine Applications Manager came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where ManageEngine Applications Manager stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where ManageEngine Applications Manager stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 170 a month (“manageengine applications manager”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 2 a month
- Its own site
- It sits on ManageEngine's site (manageengine.com), so there are no site figures for it alone
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 19 of 66 in APM
Segment leader
46%
New Relic
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 11 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 11 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.
Follow ManageEngine Applications Manager
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
ManageEngine is the company behind ManageEngine Applications Manager.ShowHide
The company
ManageEngine is the company behind ManageEngine Applications Manager.
ShowHideOn record
Company recordsIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Soluzione di monitoraggio e osservabilità delle prestazioni delle applicazioni per l'IT moderno
- For
- team IT
- Free plan or trial
- Inizia la prova gratuita manageengine.com/it/applications_manager
- Integrations claimed
- 150 manageengine.com/products/applications_manager/apm
- Customers named
- LexmarkCarlos Rivero
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, certifications, hosting
What ManageEngine Applications Manager's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: manageengine.com/it/applications_manager, manageengine.com/products/applications_manager/apm, manageengine.com/it/applications_manager/cloud-monitoring.html, manageengine.com/it/applications_manager/application-monitoring.html, manageengine.com/it/applications_manager/web-application-monitoring.html. 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 ManageEngine Applications Manager'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 ManageEngine Applications Manager, 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 ManageEngine Applications Manager by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ManageEngine Applications Manager 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 ManageEngine Applications Manager, 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.