Every category where a model named New Relic Logs 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	10%	4 of 59	7%	27	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

Direct23 labels5

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative16 labelsNone

Budget-constrained12 labels2

Scale-constrained12 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative71 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 7 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.

“Datadog Logs and New Relic are widely recommended as top choices for mid-market organizations” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Logs · direct prompt · first choice

“If you want a single recommendation, I would pick New Relic for most mid-market B2B companies” Perplexity Sonar · Logs · direct prompt · first choice

“Datadog or New Relic if you want quick value with broad ecosystem” Grok 4.1 Fast · Logs · direct prompt · first choice

“New Relic and SigNoz are strong all-around picks” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Logs · direct prompt · first choice

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.

“these can become very expensive quickly if you do not carefully curate which logs you ingest” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Logs · negative prompt · soft negative

“Datadog / New Relic \u2014 best for zero-ops... pay a 2\u20133\u00d7 premium for it” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Logs · scale prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as New Relic Logs, over the 71 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and New Relic Logs was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog Log Management63 of 7112Not in the top three

Splunk53 of 7111Not in the top three

Elastic Stack49 of 712Not in the top three

Graylog37 of 712Not in the top three

Grafana Loki36 of 715Not in the top three

Better Stack25 of 7110Not in the top three

Sumo Logic22 of 712Not in the top three

OpenObserve15 of 711Not in the top three

SolarWinds Papertrail14 of 715Not in the top three

Dynatrace13 of 710Not 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 New Relic Logs. 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 53 of the 71 answers that named New Relic Logs and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

toolradar.com33

openobserve.ai32

middleware.io27

cribl.io24

cubeapm.com22

parseable.com18

dash0.com17

checkthat.ai16

motadata.com16

expertinsights.com15

220 of the 220 domain citations in answers naming New Relic Logs came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

openobserve.ai/blog/log-management-tools26

cribl.io/resources/comparison-guides/top-10-log-collection-and-analysis-platforms18

cubeapm.com/blog/top-log-management-tools18

middleware.io/blog/log-management-tools18

toolradar.com/guides/best-log-management-tools18

checkthat.ai/answers/what-are-the-best-log-management-tools15

expertinsights.com/it-management/the-top-log-management-software-solutions15

parseable.com/blog/log-management-tools13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as New Relic Logs

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

New Relic 25New Relic Log Management 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 New Relic Logs'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 Logs, 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 newrelic.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.