IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Pixie · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Pixie

2Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

2 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Pixie was named 2 times in APM, where New Relic led with 54%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market26 of 70

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In apm · 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 Pixie 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	0%	26 of 70	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by New Relic at 54%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.

“pod-based or eBPF-native pricing (e.g., Groundcover, Pixie) instead of host-count models” Qwen 3.7 Flash · APM · negative prompt · alternative

“Prefer agentless (e.g., eBPF-based like Pixie) or network-based for quick starts.” Grok 4.1 Fast · APM · negative 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Pixie, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Pixie was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Grafana Cloud2 of 21Not in the top three

Apache SkyWalking2 of 20Not in the top three

Datadog2 of 20Not in the top three

Dynatrace2 of 20Not in the top three

Grafana2 of 20Not in the top three

Jaeger2 of 20Not in the top three

New Relic2 of 20Not in the top three

Prometheus2 of 20Not in the top three

Elastic APM1 of 21Not in the top three

AppDynamics1 of 20Not 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 Pixie. 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 2 of the 2 answers that named Pixie and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

bugsink.com2

openobserve.ai2

reddit.com2

sre.wang2

apmdigest.com1

ardura.consulting1

arxiv.org1

aws.amazon.com1

bakerhughes.com1

betterstack.com1

Fourteen of the fourteen domain citations in answers naming Pixie came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

bugsink.com/blog/you-dont-need-application-performance-monitoring2

openobserve.ai/blog/top-10-apm-tools2

sre.wang/en/posts/monitoring-apm-tool-selection2

arxiv.org/pdf/2103.112861

apmdigest.com/15-top-reasons-why-apm-deployments-fail1

ardura.consulting/blog/apm-tools-comparison-20261

aws.amazon.com/marketplace/reviews/reviews-list/prodview-ov56chowabeb41

bakerhughes.com/cordant/blog/5-common-pitfalls-traditional-asset-performance-management-ap1

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 Pixie'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 Pixie, 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 pixiebrix.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.