IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › TrackJS · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

TrackJS

4Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

4 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. TrackJS was named 1 time in Error monitoring, where Sentry led with 82%. 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-market18 of 44

under the label threshold

Enterprise28 of 45

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
Error and crash monitoring	Developer platform	0%	18 of 44	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Sentry at 82%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for TrackJS 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 TrackJS 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	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1
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

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

“TrackJS is a lightweight option for web‑only JavaScript environments” GLM 4.7 FlashX · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as TrackJS, over the 4 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.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Sentry4 of 42Not in the top three

Rollbar4 of 41Not in the top three

Datadog3 of 41Not in the top three

New Relic3 of 41Not in the top three

LogRocket3 of 40Not in the top three

Bugsnag2 of 40Not in the top three

Raygun2 of 40Not in the top three

Airbrake1 of 40Not in the top three

BugSplat1 of 40Not in the top three

CatchJS1 of 40Not 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 TrackJS. 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 3 of the 4 answers that named TrackJS and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cubeapm.com3

guideflow.com2

inventivehq.com2

ones.com2

rollbar.com2

scoutapm.com2

uxcam.com2

bugsnag.com1

clairvio.dev1

debugg.ai1

Eighteen of the eighteen domain citations in answers naming TrackJS came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cubeapm.com/blog/sentry-vs-logrocket2

guideflow.com/blog/error-monitoring-software2

inventivehq.com/blog/best-error-tracking-tools-sentry-alternatives2

ones.com/blog/error-reporting-software-comparison-8-tools-worth-trying2

rollbar.com/blog/best-error-monitoring-tools2

uxcam.com/blog/logrocket-vs-sentry2

bugsnag.com/pricing1

clairvio.dev/blog/session-replay-vs-error-tracking1

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 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.

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 trackjs.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.