Every category where a model named Nagios 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	0%	65 of 65	55%	22	criticized challenger

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	2	3
Mistral Small	0	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	2	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	2	2
Kimi K2	1	0	2	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	2	0	1	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative15 labelsNone

Budget-constrained8 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative25 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative51 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.

“Prefer a classic plugin‑driven approach | Nagios (XI for UI, Core for simplicity)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Infra monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

“Long-established, deep customization for mixed environments” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Infra monitoring · budget prompt · alternative

“Nagios Core — Best for Simple, Reliable Monitoring” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Infra monitoring · budget prompt · alternative

“Best for Simple Setups: Nagios Core” Kimi K2 · Infra monitoring · budget 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.

“Who to avoid: Older, static monitoring platforms (like early versions of Nagios or basic configurations of Zabbix) when running at scale on Kubernetes.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Infra monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

“Nagios is often described as having a "massive time cost" for setup and configuration (8–12 weeks)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Infra monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

“When to avoid: If you use cloud platforms, Kubernetes, or auto-scaling groups.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

“Fine for legacy on-prem but avoid for dynamic environments.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Infra monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Nagios, over the 51 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Nagios was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Zabbix48 of 516Not in the top three

Datadog43 of 5110Not in the top three

New Relic34 of 511Not in the top three

Dynatrace29 of 513Not in the top three

Prometheus26 of 514Not in the top three

Grafana22 of 513Not in the top three

Paessler PRTG21 of 512Not in the top three

Netdata16 of 515Not in the top three

Prometheus + Grafana14 of 512Not in the top three

Site24x714 of 510Not 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 Nagios. 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 43 of the 51 answers that named Nagios and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com36

netdata.cloud33

middleware.io29

signoz.io19

dash0.com18

motadata.com18

instatus.com17

clickhouse.com13

betterstack.com12

comparitech.com12

207 of the 207 domain citations in answers naming Nagios came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/infrastructure-monitoring-tools36

netdata.cloud/resources/best-infrastructure-monitoring-tools33

middleware.io/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools29

dash0.com/comparisons/infrastructure-monitoring-tools18

motadata.com/blog/best-it-infrastructure-monitoring-tools17

signoz.io/comparisons/infrastructure-monitoring-tools17

instatus.com/blog/infrastructure-monitoring-tools14

clickhouse.com/resources/engineering/top-infrastructure-monitoring-tools-comparison13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Nagios

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Nagios; a claim can dispute any of them.

Nagios Core 5Nagios XI 5Nagios/Nagios XI 2Checkmk / Nagios / Icinga 1Icinga/Nagios XI 1Nagios (Nagios Core) 1

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 Nagios'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 Nagios, 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 nagios.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.