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 28 → 24 of 36
Scout · 1 category · Named, not rankedScout Monitoring
4Judge labels
1First choices
1Negative labels
4 / 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.
Standing
2 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Scout Monitoring was named 2 times in Error monitoring, where Sentry led with 76%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business24 of 36
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market7 of 42
2%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
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 Scout Monitoring 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 | 2% | 7 of 42 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Sentry at 76% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Scout Monitoring held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Error monitoring · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 4 → 7 of 39
EnterprisegoneNot named this edition; 2% in September 2026.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsNot ranked
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error monitoring | 2% | 2% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 4 → 7 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 Scout Monitoring 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 Scout Monitoring 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 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
Direct2 labels1
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative1 labelNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.
“Scout Monitoring is also recommended as a leading option in this space, often cited alongside Rollbar” Mistral Small · Error monitoring · direct prompt · first choice
“Rollbar and Scout Monitoring are explicitly ranked for mid-market B2B use.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Error monitoring · direct 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 Scout Monitoring, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Scout Monitoring was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Scout Monitoring, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Scout Monitoring 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 Scout Monitoring. 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 4 of the 4 answers that named Scout Monitoring and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
dupple.com3
guideflow.com3
citehawk.com2
it-ai-index.com2
scoutapm.comYour site2
securityboulevard.com2
vibereference.com2
zipdo.co2
6sense.com1
apistatuscheck.com1
Eighteen of the twenty domain citations in answers naming Scout Monitoring came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
scoutapm.com ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Scout Monitoring takes 2% of first choices and Sentry takes 76%.ShowHide
Search and answers
scoutapm.com ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Scout Monitoring takes 2% of first choices and Sentry takes 76%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “error monitoring tool”
2
Position for “error monitoring tools”
2
- Searches for its name, Google
- 50 a month (“scout monitoring”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 4 a month
- Its company's site
- scoutapm.com shared with Scout's other products; the figures are the site's
- Organic visits to its site
- about 4,420 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 2,444 · 38 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 2,334
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 7 of 42 in error monitoring
Segment leader
76%
Sentry
- First choices
- 1 across its categories
- Named in
- 4 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 4 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.
Follow Scout Monitoring
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
Scout is the company behind Scout Monitoring.ShowHide
The company
Scout is the company behind Scout Monitoring.
ShowHideOn record
Company records- Also from Scout
- Scout APM
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- the PHP monitoring solution your project needs
- For
- PHP apps, including Laravel 5.5+ applications and Symfony
- Price stated
- Pricing scoutapm.com/agents/python-monitoring
- Free plan or trial
- Start Free Trial scoutapm.com/agents/php-monitoring
- Customers named
- Grizzly LabsIETF
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting
What Scout Monitoring's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: scoutapm.com/agents/php-monitoring, scoutapm.com/agents/ruby-monitoring, scoutapm.com/agents/python-monitoring, scoutapm.com/competitor-comparisons/scout-vs-elastic-apm. 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 Scout Monitoring'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 Scout Monitoring, 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 Scout Monitoring by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Scout Monitoring 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 Scout Monitoring, 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.