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 35 of 36, unchanged
New Relic · 1 category · RankedNew Relic Errors Inbox
86Judge labels
0First choices
38Negative labels
14 / 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.
Best standing
0% in Error monitoring for mid-market buyers
Rank 32 of 42 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 41% of its 32 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of New Relic Errors Inbox →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business35 of 36
0%14 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market32 of 42
0%32 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise9 of 48
0%40 labels
criticized challenger
In error monitoring · 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 New Relic Errors Inbox 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error and crash monitoring | Developer platform | 0% | 32 of 42 | 41% | 32 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, New Relic Errors Inbox held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Error monitoring · by segment
Mid-market=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 40 → 38 of 39
Enterprise▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 5 → 9 of 47
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error monitoring | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 40 → 32 of 42 |
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 New Relic Errors Inbox 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 New Relic Errors Inbox 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 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
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
Direct11 labelsNone
Paraphrase3 labelsNone
Comparative21 labelsNone
Budget-constrained9 labelsNone
Scale-constrained14 labelsNone
Negative28 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative86 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.
“For full-stack visibility: New Relic has a generous free tier with APM, logs, and infrastructure monitoring” MiniMax M2.5 · Error monitoring · budget prompt · alternative
“useful when you want error monitoring alongside performance and infrastructure visibility” Perplexity Sonar · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative
“the recommendation shifts to Datadog Error Tracking or New Relic Errors Inbox” Muse Glimmer 30B · Error monitoring · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Choose Datadog or New Relic if your team already uses one of them” GPT-6 Luna · Error monitoring · comparative 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.
“Avoid: Datadog or New Relic for *just* error monitoring—they're overkill and overpriced” Kimi K2 · Error monitoring · direct prompt · hard negative
“Avoid Datadog/New Relic if you *only* need error tracking.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Error monitoring · direct prompt · hard negative
“Avoid full observability suites (Datadog/New Relic)” Grok 4.20 · Error monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative
“New Relic recently shifted to an ingress-based pricing model... Many legacy users were shocked by price increases” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Error monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as New Relic Errors Inbox, over the 86 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and New Relic Errors Inbox was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as New Relic Errors Inbox, over the 86 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and New Relic Errors Inbox 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 New Relic Errors Inbox. 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 76 of the 86 answers that named New Relic Errors Inbox and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
ones.com42
dupple.com37
guideflow.com37
citehawk.com28
cubeapm.com27
rollbar.com26
scoutapm.com25
zipdo.co25
newrelic.comYour site23
worldmetrics.org23
270 of the 293 domain citations in answers naming New Relic Errors Inbox came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
newrelic.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, New Relic Errors Inbox takes 0% of first choices and Sentry takes 76%.ShowHide
Search and answers
newrelic.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, New Relic Errors Inbox takes 0% of first choices and Sentry takes 76%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “error monitoring tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “error monitoring tools”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 10 a month (“new relic errors inbox”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Its company's site
- newrelic.com shared with New Relic's other products; the figures are the site's
- Organic visits to its site
- about 83,276 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 44,479 · 808 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 24,898
- Paid Google search
- 2 searches its ads show for, about 16 clicks and $412 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 32 of 42 in error monitoring
Segment leader
76%
Sentry
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 86 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 76 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.
Names read as New Relic Errors Inbox
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as New Relic Errors Inbox; a claim can dispute any of them.
New Relic 25New Relic Error Analytics 1New Relic One 1
Follow New Relic Errors Inbox
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
New Relic is the company behind New Relic Errors Inbox.ShowHide
The company
New Relic is the company behind New Relic Errors Inbox.
ShowHideOn record
Company records- Also from New Relic
- New Relic AIOps, New Relic Browser, New Relic Logs, New Relic Synthetics
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Prioritize and resolve errors from one unified inbox
- For
- New Relic full platform users and Jira Cloud users
- Price stated
- available for free newrelic.com/instant-observability/jira-errors-inbox
- Free plan or trial
- available for free to all New Relic full platform users and Jira Cloud users newrelic.com/instant-observability/jira-errors-inbox
- Certifications
- FedRAMP & HIPAA Compliance
- Customers named
- Domino'sEveryMatrixVerizonWilliam Hill
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, integrations, hosting
What New Relic Errors Inbox's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: newrelic.com/errors-inbox-survey-sweepstakes, newrelic.com/instant-observability/jira-errors-inbox. 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 New Relic Errors Inbox'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 New Relic Errors Inbox, 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 New Relic Errors Inbox by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where New Relic Errors Inbox 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 New Relic Errors Inbox, 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.