Every category where a model named xMatters 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
Incident management and on-call	IT operations and endpoint	2%	13 of 53	36%	11	criticized challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	2	0	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
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	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 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labelsNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained3 labels2

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative9 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative31 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“If budget is the main constraint, xMatters Free is a strong starting point because it offers a free plan for up to 5 users” GPT-5.4 mini · Incidents · budget prompt · first choice

“Best for: Organizations needing flexible workflow automation” MiniMax M2.5 · Incidents · 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.

“scored only 9/25 points in a recent comparison, indicating significant limitations” Mistral Small · Incidents · negative prompt · hard negative

“It is highly complex to configure and lacks the modern, developer-centric design” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Incidents · negative prompt · soft negative

“Sometimes flagged as dated and heavier than needed for modern teams” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Incidents · negative prompt · soft negative

“Better for more complex enterprises with multi-team coordination” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Incidents · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as xMatters, over the 31 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and xMatters was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PagerDuty30 of 3114Not in the top three

Opsgenie23 of 311Not in the top three

Splunk On-Call17 of 310Not in the top three

incident.io14 of 314Not in the top three

Rootly14 of 312Not in the top three

Jira Service Management9 of 310Not in the top three

ServiceNow ITSM8 of 311Not in the top three

Squadcast7 of 311Not in the top three

FireHydrant7 of 310Not in the top three

Grafana IRM7 of 310Not 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 xMatters. 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 26 of the 31 answers that named xMatters and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

rootly.com14

pagerduty.com13

atlassian.com10

hyperping.com10

incident.io10

xurrent.com10

xmatters.comYour site8

expertinsights.com7

betterstack.com6

g2.com6

Eighty-six of the ninety-four domain citations in answers naming xMatters came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

expertinsights.com/it-management/the-top-incident-management-software7

hyperping.com/blog/best-incident-management-tools7

betterstack.com/community/comparisons/incident-management-tools6

xurrent.com/blog/top-incident-management-software6

atlassian.com/software/opsgenie/pricing5

pagerduty.com/resources/devops/learn/opsgenie-alternatives5

rootly.com/blog/15-best-incident-response-software-platforms-for-modern-engineering-teams-5

complyjet.com/blog/best-incident-management-software4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as xMatters

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

xMatters (by Everbridge) 1xMatters Free 1

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 xMatters'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 xMatters, 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 xmatters.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.