Small businessnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 11 of 36, unchanged
1 category · Named, not rankedTrackJS
15Judge labels
1First choices
5Negative labels
9 / 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
6 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. TrackJS was named 6 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 business11 of 36
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market30 of 42
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise5 of 48
2%3 labels
under the label threshold
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 TrackJS 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 | 0% | 30 of 42 | 33% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by Sentry at 76% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, TrackJS held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Error monitoring · by segment
Mid-market=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 17 → 28 of 39
Enterprise▲+3Since September 2026: 0% → 3%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
3%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 26 → 5 of 47
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error monitoring | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 17 → 30 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 TrackJS 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 TrackJS 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative6 labelsNone
Budget-constrained2 labels1
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative7 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative15 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.
“Is lightweight and JS-focused, wants simple console error tracking | TrackJS” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Error monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best for Frontend JavaScript Error Monitoring” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Error monitoring · comparative 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.
“Tools to actively avoid if possible: TrackJS, CatchJS, Errorception” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Error monitoring · negative prompt · hard negative
“TrackJS has significantly fallen out of favor in the industry comparison lists” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Error monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as TrackJS, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and TrackJS was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as TrackJS, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and TrackJS 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 TrackJS. 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 15 of the 15 answers that named TrackJS and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
ones.com12
dupple.com10
guideflow.com9
citehawk.com8
zipdo.co7
costbench.com6
toolradar.com6
betterstack.com5
debugg.ai5
devopsschool.com5
Seventy-three of the seventy-three domain citations in answers naming TrackJS came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
trackjs.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, TrackJS takes 0% of first choices and Sentry takes 76%.ShowHide
Search and answers
trackjs.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, TrackJS takes 0% of first choices and Sentry takes 76%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “error monitoring tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “error monitoring tools”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 140 a month (“trackjs”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 926 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 238 · 8 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,322
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
Ads on GoogleDetailLess1 ads · 1 text · 1 shown in the last 30 days
First shown June 2023, as TrackJS LLC, verified.
On Google's pages: 1
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 30 of 42 in error monitoring
Segment leader
76%
Sentry
- First choices
- 1 across its categories
- Named in
- 15 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 15 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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on trackjs.com
292
subdomains included
Content
142
counted in the table below
Documentation
66
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 99 | 0 | 2026-04-08 | Error monitoring | |
| Comparison | 37 | 0 | 2026-04-08 | ||
| Case study | 4 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 1 | 0 | 2025-11-11 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 1 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-04-08Introducing certkit blog
- 2026-04-08Bugsnag alternative comparison
- 2026-04-08Bugsnag vs datadog comparison
- 2026-04-08Bugsnag vs logrocket comparison
- 2026-04-08Bugsnag vs raygun comparison
- 2026-04-08Bugsnag vs rollbar comparison
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page trackjs.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow TrackJS
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
TrackJS is its own company.ShowHide
The company
TrackJS is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- TrackJS is a frontend native JavaScript error monitoring tool. Private by default, zero page impact, and built to give you the full story behind every production error.
- For
- developers
- Price stated
- Priced on your traffic, not your errors. trackjs.com
- Starting price
- 45 trackjs.com
- Free plan or trial
- Start free trial trackjs.com
- Certifications
- GDPRCCPA
- Customers named
- BitnativeMetamaskSmartThingsSupersideTHGCornellFlexeparkPandora
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations, hosting
What TrackJS's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: trackjs.com, trackjs.com/pricing, trackjs.com/security, trackjs.com/customers. 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 TrackJS'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 TrackJS, 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 TrackJS by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where TrackJS 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 TrackJS, 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.