[unCited]
ProductCitation IndexAI InfluenceBlogBook
[unCited]/Honeycomb
ProductCitation IndexAI InfluenceBlogBook
Claim profile →

AEO Score

66

Strong Presence

Avg Prompt Score

54

across 494 prompts

AI Share of Voice

54%

across 472 prompts

Category Visibility

#6

in Observability & APM · of 44

Critical Issues

3

critical + high

Per-stage performance

🔍Discovery
286 category
Cited63%179/286
Share of voice50%avg
Engine consensus49%of engines
Competitors7.2avg/cited
Sentiment—no data
⚖️Evaluation
13 brand-level
Cited69%9/13
Share of voice69%avg
Engine consensus100%of engines
Competitors1.2avg/cited
Sentiment—no data
🛡️Trust
6 brand-level
Cited67%4/6
Share of voice67%avg
Engine consensus100%of engines
Competitors1.3avg/cited
Sentiment—no data
💰Conversion
6 brand-level
Cited83%5/6
Share of voice83%avg
Engine consensus100%of engines
Competitors0.8avg/cited
Sentiment—no data

Cited rate · share of voice · engine consensus · sentiment, broken out by buyer-journey stage. Sentiment is the net positive−negative skew across engines that cited the brand at this stage.

Categories Honeycomb is visible in

2
  • Observability & APM6 of 44→
  • AI Observability18 of 56→

Executive summary

Honeycomb is highly likely to be cited for evaluation-stage prompts because it has first-party comparison content (e.g., Honeycomb vs. Datadog) and a crawlable, tiered pricing page. The biggest AI-citation risk is missing/uncertain structured data coverage (SoftwareApplication/FAQPage) and weaker secondary review/analyst surfaces (e.g., TrustRadius/G2/Capterra are present, but enterprise analyst signals like Gartner/Forrester/IDC are not reliably accessible via live checks).

Based on audit of honeycomb.io · Apr 2, 2026

Built for The Citation Economy