Every category where a model named New Relic 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
Application performance monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	54%	1 of 70	15%	67	endorsed leader
Observability platforms	IT operations and endpoint	27%	2 of 63	25%	64	criticized challenger
Infrastructure monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	22%	2 of 65	15%	48	accepted challenger
Error and crash monitoring	Developer platform	0%	43 of 44	52%	27	criticized challenger
Cloud cost management	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	67 of 79	50%	2	under 10 labels · led by Vantage at 54%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for New Relic 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 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	2	3	9	0	14
GPT-5.4 mini	5	4	5	4	18
Gemini 3.5 Flash	7	6	2	7	22
Perplexity Sonar	3	5	1	5	14
Grok 4.1 Fast	5	6	4	7	22
Mistral Small	5	3	4	3	15
DeepSeek V4 Flash	7	6	2	4	19
Llama 4 Maverick	1	2	8	3	14
Qwen 3.7 Flash	2	9	3	6	20
Kimi K2	6	7	3	4	20
GLM 4.7 FlashX	2	8	2	3	15
MiniMax M2.5	4	5	4	2	15

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

Direct100 labels31

Paraphrase99 labels26

Comparative114 labels9not counted in share

Budget-constrained89 labels28

Scale-constrained78 labels15

Negative97 labels9not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative577 labels in all, every segment counted; 100 of the 118 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.

“Price/performance leaders at your size are commonly New Relic (transparent per-GB ingest, generous free tier, easy to defend to finance)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · APM · scale prompt · first choice

“If your B2B product is a modern SaaS application deployed on public cloud infrastructure ... New Relic is highly recommended.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Infra monitoring · direct prompt · first choice

“New Relic: Known for its balanced features and predictable pricing, making it a good choice for mid-market companies.” Llama 4 Maverick · Observability · direct prompt · first choice

“New Relic | Balanced features & predictable pricing | Generous free tier (100GB/month), strong NRQL analytics” Kimi K2 · APM · scale 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.

“New Relic transitioned from simple ingest pricing to a "Compute Capacity Unit" (CCU) model. This has been widely criticized by developers for being opaque.... The Trap: It penalizes investigation.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Observability · negative prompt · hard negative

“One user on Reddit recommends staying away from New Relic due to its closed-sourced agents and the fact that it can be expensive.” Llama 4 Maverick · Observability · negative prompt · hard negative

“Pricing model confusion ... Stability concerns - users report "laughable" stability in some regions” Kimi K2 · APM · negative prompt · hard negative

“Ingestion-based pricing that can spike unexpectedly ... Proprietary SDKs that create lock-in” Kimi K2 · Observability · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as New Relic, over the 577 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and New Relic was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Datadog529 of 577113Compare →

Dynatrace318 of 57757Not in the top three

Grafana197 of 57737Compare →

Sentry139 of 57752Not in the top three

SigNoz117 of 57710Compare →

AppDynamics90 of 5770Not in the top three

Splunk85 of 5770Not in the top three

Zabbix83 of 5775Compare →

Prometheus79 of 5779Not in the top three

Site24x775 of 57718Compare →

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. 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 454 of the 577 answers that named New Relic and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

newrelic.comYour site179

gartner.com166

cubeapm.com143

toolradar.com119

g2.com115

openobserve.ai114

motadata.com111

middleware.io106

uptrace.dev102

rollbar.com99

1,075 of the 1,254 domain citations in answers naming New Relic came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/infrastructure-monitoring-tools82

toolradar.com/guides/best-observability-platforms75

gartner.com/reviews/market/observability-platforms72

netdata.cloud/resources/best-infrastructure-monitoring-tools72

ir.com/guides/top-observability-tools-comparison-2026-smbs-vs-enterprise-platforms71

ardura.consulting/blog/apm-tools-comparison-202667

rollbar.com/blog/best-apm-tools67

uptrace.dev/tools/top-observability-tools67

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as New Relic

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

New Relic / Scout 1New Relic APM 1NewRelic 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'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, 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.