New Relic Error Tracking

Name: New Relic Error Tracking
Brand: New Relic
Rating: 4.3 (941 reviews)

Leader

Data for Engineers

Est 2007|Valuation $6.1B|Raised $385.3M

LinkedIn 188K|Website|Web traffic 1.3M|FTEs 3,034|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsObservability Platform Error Tracking

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas of relative strength for New Relic - Consolidation of multiple telemetry types and platform-level correlation between errors, traces, and logs. - Integrated inbox workflow that links errors to contextual telemetry for debugging. Areas where competitors often have advantages - Sentry: often preferred by teams focused primarily on exception monitoring and rapid developer workflows. - Datadog: may be a stronger fit when an organization has standardized broadly on Datadog across infrastructure and application monitoring. - Dynatrace: often selected by large enterprises that prioritize automated topology and deep infrastructure mapping, though typically at higher price points. Pricing comparison realities - New Relic's ingest-based pricing can be cost-effective if telemetry volume is controlled, and it introduces risk if log/event payloads increase unexpectedly. - Datadog's pricing model for error tracking is typically presented based on error volume and can be expensive in multi-product deployments. - Dynatrace uses pricing tied to monitored footprint (for example, per monitored unit over time) and scales with environment size.

	New Relic Error Tracking (Errors Inbox)	Datadog Error Tracking	Sentry
Starting Price	Free tier includes a limited ingest allowance and a single full platform user; paid pricing is per-user plus ingest (published per-GB overage pricing applies)	Datadog lists Error Tracking priced based on error volume with tiered bands; verify current public pricing	Free tier and paid tiers exist; pricing varies by event volume and plan (verify on vendor site)
Primary fit	Organizations seeking error triage correlated with APM, logs, and traces within a single platform	Organizations already invested in Datadog seeking unified workflows across Datadog modules	Development teams prioritizing an error-first product experience and developer-focused exception triage
Key Strength	Cross-stack correlation (APM + logs + traces + errors), unified inbox, Jira/Slack workflows	Broad integration surface and unified Datadog ecosystem	Developer-focused exception triage and strong community adoption
Key Weakness	Cost governance complexity; may not offer the same depth of developer-centric exception workflows as dedicated tools	Multi-product deployments can increase overall cost and pricing complexity	May require additional tools in enterprise settings for full-stack infrastructure observability

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas of relative strength for New Relic

Consolidation of multiple telemetry types and platform-level correlation between errors, traces, and logs.
Integrated inbox workflow that links errors to contextual telemetry for debugging.

Areas where competitors often have advantages

Sentry: often preferred by teams focused primarily on exception monitoring and rapid developer workflows.
Datadog: may be a stronger fit when an organization has standardized broadly on Datadog across infrastructure and application monitoring.
Dynatrace: often selected by large enterprises that prioritize automated topology and deep infrastructure mapping, though typically at higher price points.

Pricing comparison realities

New Relic's ingest-based pricing can be cost-effective if telemetry volume is controlled, and it introduces risk if log/event payloads increase unexpectedly.
Datadog's pricing model for error tracking is typically presented based on error volume and can be expensive in multi-product deployments.
Dynatrace uses pricing tied to monitored footprint (for example, per monitored unit over time) and scales with environment size.

	New Relic Error Tracking (Errors Inbox)	Datadog Error Tracking	Sentry
Starting Price	Free tier includes a limited ingest allowance and a single full platform user; paid pricing is per-user plus ingest (published per-GB overage pricing applies)	Datadog lists Error Tracking priced based on error volume with tiered bands; verify current public pricing	Free tier and paid tiers exist; pricing varies by event volume and plan (verify on vendor site)
Primary fit	Organizations seeking error triage correlated with APM, logs, and traces within a single platform	Organizations already invested in Datadog seeking unified workflows across Datadog modules	Development teams prioritizing an error-first product experience and developer-focused exception triage
Key Strength	Cross-stack correlation (APM + logs + traces + errors), unified inbox, Jira/Slack workflows	Broad integration surface and unified Datadog ecosystem	Developer-focused exception triage and strong community adoption
Key Weakness	Cost governance complexity; may not offer the same depth of developer-centric exception workflows as dedicated tools	Multi-product deployments can increase overall cost and pricing complexity	May require additional tools in enterprise settings for full-stack infrastructure observability