Index › Products › OpManager Nexus · October 2026 Edition

3 categories · Named, not ranked

OpManager Nexus

12Judge labels

1First choices

4Negative labels

7 / 14Models named it

3Categories

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. OpManager Nexus was named 5 times in AIOps and 2 other categories, where New Relic led with 17%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business70 of 96

under the label threshold

Mid-market74 of 93

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In aiops · 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 OpManager Nexus 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
AIOps platforms	IT operations and endpoint	0%	74 of 93	50%	2	under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 17%
Application performance monitoring	IT operations and endpoint	0%	30 of 66	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 46%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Data center infrastructure management	IT operations and endpoint	0%	40 of 103	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Sunbird DCIM at 27%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for OpManager Nexus yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated OpManager Nexus across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	1	2

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 labels1

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative5 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative12 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“Designed for mid-size to large organizations managing hybrid and on-premises environments, it provides deep visibility across every layer of the IT stack.” Llama 4 Maverick · APM · direct prompt · alternative

“Need fastest time to value | Datadog, New Relic, OpManager Nexus” Kimi K2 · AIOps · scale prompt · alternative

“worth considering if your team is SMB-to-mid-market” Perplexity Sonar · DCIM · 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.

“Users find the complex configuration of OpManager Nexus challenging, particularly in large network setups” Muse Glimmer 30B · AIOps · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OpManager Nexus, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OpManager Nexus was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

New Relic6 of 122Not among the top eight

Dynatrace5 of 120Not among the top eight

Datadog4 of 120Not among the top eight

Schneider Electric EcoStruxure IT3 of 121Not among the top eight

BigPanda3 of 120Not among the top eight

Datadog APM2 of 121Not among the top eight

IBM Instana2 of 121Not among the top eight

ManageEngine OpManager2 of 121Not among the top eight

AppDynamics2 of 120Not among the top eight

Better Stack2 of 120Not among the top eight

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 OpManager Nexus. 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 12 of the 12 answers that named OpManager Nexus and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com11

motadata.com7

coralogix.com4

devopsschool.com4

us.fitgap.com4

capterra.com3

learn.g2.com3

manageengine.com3

techtarget.com3

thectoclub.com3

No domain is on file for OpManager Nexus, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

motadata.com/blog/aiops-platforms4

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-aiops-platforms-features-pros-cons-comparison3

g2.com/categories/aiops-platforms3

g2.com/categories/aiops-platforms/small-business3

g2.com/categories/data-center-infrastructure-management-dcim/enterprise3

techtarget.com/it-infrastructure/feature/Top-data-center-infrastructure-management-softwar3

axiometica.com/blog/aiops-platforms-compared-20262

bmc.com/content/dam/bmc/collateral/third-party/gigaom-radar-for-aiops-solutions-v2.0.pdf2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as OpManager Nexus

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

ManageEngine OpManager Plus / OpManager Nexus 1

Follow OpManager Nexus

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.

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 OpManager Nexus'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 OpManager Nexus, 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 OpManager Nexus by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where OpManager Nexus 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 OpManager Nexus, 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.