Agentic Index

Production ops agents ranked for automated incident resolution (2026)

Data last verified October 18, 2026

The Agentic Index grades 38 SRE and DevOps agent vendors against the same 14 capabilities as every other lane. These are independent ratings of AI SRE and production ops vendors, rated from each vendor's own public evidence rather than from analyst opinion, vendor briefings or paid placement. 15 of them document the full resolution loop. That means the signal starts the agent, the agent reaches your stack for evidence, it runs multi step work rather than one enrichment lookup, it leaves a record somebody can read afterwards, and a human governs what it is allowed to change in production. That is 39.5% of the lane. This is a bar, not a leaderboard: a vendor either documents all five in its own public materials or it does not clear, and Partial evidence on any one does not count.

The finding underneath the list is the reason the fourth and fifth capabilities are on the bar, and on review it has moved. Oversight and the record now mostly arrive together. 6 of the 24 vendors documenting human oversight and guardrails in full do not document observability and auditability in full, and 5 document the record without the oversight. What keeps near misses off the list now is the work itself: 3 of the 8 vendors sitting one capability short fail on multi step workflow orchestration alone, and 3 on the record. For a category whose pitch is resolving incidents while nobody is watching, ask to see the agent carry one incident from signal to proposed fix without a person stitching the steps together.

Two more numbers to carry into a vendor call. Almost every vendor here starts on its own. 36 of 38 document triggers in full, so an alert, webhook or monitor opens the work with nobody typing, and 33 document integrations and tool calling. Of those that reach the stack in full, the number without a documented trigger is 1. The test still belongs in the demo: ask to see an investigation open with nobody touching a keyboard. And memory is almost absent here. Only 7 of the 38 document memory and state persistence in full, 4 of the 15 that clear this bar, and testing and debugging at 8 of 38. Incident resolution is a recurrence problem. An agent carrying no state between runs meets Tuesday's outage as though Monday's had never happened.

One honest note on what this list is not. The bar tests the loop, and in this lane the loop does not always run over outages. Most of these vendors resolve production incidents. Some govern infrastructure, network or delivery changes rather than responding to anything. Every entry says which, beside its name, because a buyer scanning a page about incident resolution should not have to guess.

The resolution loop, and how the 38 vendors score against it

Step	Capability, and what has to be documented	Full	Only blocker
1.The signal starts it	Triggers and channel coverageAn alert, a webhook, a monitor or a page starts the agent with nobody typing. Without this the vendor has built an assistant, not an on call teammate.	36 (95%)	0
2.It reaches the stack	Integrations and tool callingThe agent calls into logs, metrics, traces, the cluster, the repository and the ticket queue to gather evidence rather than reasoning over a summary.	33 (87%)	0
3.It works the problem	Workflow orchestrationMulti step investigation with branching, not a single enrichment lookup. Form a hypothesis, test it, discard it, try the next one.	28 (74%)	3
4.The work is auditable	Observability and auditabilityA durable record of what the agent looked at, what it concluded and what it changed, readable after the fact by somebody who was asleep at the time.	23 (61%)	3
5.A human governs the fix	Human oversight and guardrailsApproval gates, blast radius limits or scoped permissions on anything the agent changes in production. Restarting a service is not a suggestion.	24 (63%)	2

Full means the vendor publishes evidence meeting the capability in its own public materials, under the Agentic Index verification standard. Only blocker counts vendors that document the other four capabilities in full and fail on this one alone. Note the shape of the last two columns: integrations sweeps the pool at 33 of 38 and blocks nobody, orchestration reaches 28, triggers 36, and then observability drops to 23 and accounts for 3 of the 8 near misses on its own. This field can act. What it cannot consistently document is what it did.

The 15 vendors that document the full resolution loop

Ordered by total coverage across all 14 capabilities, ties broken alphabetically, which is exactly what the rankings pages compute. Coverage measures breadth across the whole taxonomy, so a lower score here usually means a narrower product rather than a weaker one. Two of the strongest single purpose investigators in this lane sit at the bottom of this list for that reason.

1.Komodor

13.0 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: Kubernetes and cloud operations, reliability and cost together, through ready made and customer built agents

An operations platform rather than a single agent. Komodor runs ready made AI SRE, cost and software operations agents beside agents the customer builds, all on a shared memory and knowledge graph, with approvals before action and a full audit trail. With NudgeBee it puts reliability and cloud cost on one context. Both plans are custom priced; Starter bills a platform fee plus AI tokens and comes with a free trial.
2.Fabrix.ai

12.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: IT, network and security operations incidents across a hybrid estate, root caused against a live enterprise ontology and remediated with a person approving each action

The entry built for the whole operations floor rather than one team. Fabrix.ai, formerly CloudFabrix, runs an AI SRE agent beside NetOps, observability, SecOps and service desk agents on one platform, all reasoning against a living ontology, a continuously updated map of assets, topology, dependencies and owners across a hybrid estate. Its Agent Control Plane traces every run from first prompt to final action, an evaluators panel scores agents on the customer's own data before they ship, and its AIOps agents state that the team approves every action. Where a tool has no MCP support, the platform generates the tools for it, which matters in estates full of older network and monitoring systems. It runs on premises, in a private cloud or hosted, including on the customer's own NVIDIA GPUs, and is sold through sales and partners with no public price.
3.Edge Delta

12.0 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: alerts and incidents across SRE, security and DevOps work, investigated against the telemetry its own pipelines already carry

The entry whose starting point is different from everything else here. Edge Delta is an observability platform built on telemetry pipelines that filter, enrich and route logs, metrics and traces at the point they are generated, with the agentic layer running on top of the data that results. The pipelines install into the customer's own environment, Kubernetes through Helm or kubectl, Linux, Docker, Amazon ECS, macOS, Windows and OpenShift, and can process, reduce and store data in the cluster before anything reaches the back end, with a data boundary control governing what is exposed to a model. AI Team then ships agents shaped as engineering roles rather than as features: an AI SRE that starts investigating the moment an alert fires, a Security Engineer reviewing pull requests, a Software Engineer proposing fixes, a Work Tracker keeping tickets in sync, with OnCall AI orchestrating them. The trade off is worth naming: everything above depends on running its pipeline, so this is a telemetry decision as much as an incident one.
4.Corelayer

11.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: production incidents and silent data quality anomalies in regulated, data heavy environments, root caused with cited evidence

The specialist, and the one that watches the data rather than only the infrastructure. Corelayer, sold by Sevvy AI, Inc., is built for finance, healthcare and insurance, and its distinguishing claim is silent data quality anomalies: not the outage that pages someone, but the pipeline that keeps running while quietly producing wrong numbers. It ingests alerts, exceptions, logs, metrics and the underlying data, filters noise through sub agents, then traces an anomaly through pipelines and correlates it with deploys and infrastructure events, documenting every step and citing it back to logs and code, optionally opening a pull request with the fix. The Production Cortex maps code, databases, deployments and observability into a maintained context graph, and a per organization memory of failure patterns is built from engineer feedback and resolved incidents and can be reviewed and edited rather than merely accumulated. It is one of only four vendors on this list documenting memory in full, and in a lane where the same incident recurs quarterly that is the capability to ask about.
5.Doctor Droid

11.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: production alerts, investigated end to end and fixed through runbooks the team approves

Doctor Droid investigates alerts end to end on a live knowledge graph of the stack and remediates only through runbooks the team approves, which is the oversight the bar asks for. It runs in the cloud or in the customer's VPC with bring your own LLM, publishes its API, and its PlayBooks engine is open source. It is also one of the few entries a small team can buy without a call: Startup is $99 a month with a 14 day trial.
6.Itential

11.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: infrastructure and network change requests across multi vendor estates rather than outages, run either as deterministic workflow engine jobs or as governed FlowAgents

One of five cleared records whose grid includes testing, with Komodor, Fabrix.ai, TierZero and Resolve AI. Itential is a network and infrastructure automation platform that moved into this lane on 12 September once the SRE and DevOps category existed to hold it: a deterministic workflow engine at a published throughput sits beside FlowAgents that combine LLM reasoning with governed execution, Workflow Studio ships versioning and testing as a priced line, and integrations are named by class and vendor across ITSM, infrastructure as code, CI/CD, observability, AIOps and multi vendor network estates. It governs change rather than responding to outages, and the entry says so.
7.NudgeBee

11.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: Kubernetes and cloud ops incidents, plus cloud cost work, on one shared graph

A broad agent remit that, like Komodor, folds incident response, Kubernetes operations and cloud cost onto one context. NuBi, the SRE agent, sits alongside more than 50 prebuilt cloud operations agents on a semantic knowledge graph that correlates logs, metrics, traces, code, configuration, tickets and topology, and fixes ship as pull requests and runbook executions behind a person's approval rather than as silent changes. It documents self hosting and bring your own model, and the self hosted tier is free.
8.TierZero

11.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: production issues, investigated, triaged and resolved with an audit trail of approved actions

An agent that resolves as well as investigates, and one of five cleared entries whose grid includes testing. TierZero investigates, triages and resolves production issues, with an audit trail of approved actions, memory that carries across incidents and Prompt Studio for comparing prompt changes side by side. It publishes per user pricing, $75 a month on Starter and $100 on Pro, billed yearly, with a free trial.
9.Bluebricks

10.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: cloud infrastructure changes across AWS, GCP and Azure, rather than outages

Not an incident responder, and deliberately included. Bluebricks is not an incident responder: it is the control layer that lets other agents change cloud infrastructure safely, grounding them in a live cloud graph and routing every change through a plan, approve and apply workflow with cost, operational and security risk analysis and fully auditable run history. It clears the resolution bar because governed change with a readable record is exactly what the bar tests. Read it as the answer to the question the rest of this list raises, which is who is watching the agent that is fixing production.
10.Hyground

10.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: production alerts inside the customer's own cluster, on the customer's own models

The self hosted entry. Hyground runs from one Helm chart inside the customer's cluster on the customer's own models, which answers the residency question before it is asked, opens investigations from alerts and schedules, and asks before any write action. It is built for European enterprises and licensed flat by infrastructure size, with no per seat charges or usage metering, and a public sandbox shows it working before a demo.
11.Resolve AI

10.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: production incidents, triaged and investigated in parallel by a team of specialized agents

A team of agents rather than one. Resolve AI goes on call with specialized agents that triage alerts and investigate incidents in parallel, and every mitigation waits for a person's approval. It is one of five cleared entries whose grid includes testing, and it grounds investigations in a maintained knowledge structure. Contracts are metered in credits and sold through sales, with no public rates.
12.incident.io

10.0 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: incident coordination and response, with investigation folded in

The coordination side of the lane, with a genuine investigation agent folded into it rather than bolted on. It runs natively in Slack and Teams where response already happens, creating channels, paging responders and executing predefined workflows, while the AI SRE investigates in parallel, correlates telemetry with code changes and drafts fixes. Netflix, Etsy, Intercom, Vanta and Airbnb are named customers. It also publishes its pricing in full, which in this lane is close to a differentiator on its own.
13.AppFactor

9.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: application modernization and maintenance across an enterprise estate, rather than outages (secondary lane membership, primary category Coding agent)

In this lane by secondary category, and a modernization platform rather than an incident responder. AppFactor runs persistent agents across an enterprise application estate that interrogate running systems to discover, assess, modernize, build, deploy and maintain software, with approval before changes land. It clears because its loop is triggered, reaches the systems, runs multi step work, is auditable and is approved. Sold through a demo, with no public rates.
14.Better Stack

9.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: incident response and root cause, proposals only

A plain statement of the oversight posture: the AI SRE proposes hypotheses and never takes an action without approval. Root cause runs on an eBPF based service map with log analysis, on call scheduling and status pages ship in the same product, and a first class MCP server exposes the telemetry to LLM workflows including Claude Code. Self serve pricing starts with a free tier, and a Responder license is $34 a month ($29 billed annually). If your objection to autonomous remediation is that you do not want it, this is the entry built around agreeing with you.
15.SRE.ai

7.5 / 14 capabilities

Resolves: Salesforce delivery changes, designed, built and deployed by agents that pause for approval, rather than outages

The Salesforce delivery entry, and the lowest coverage score on the list. SRE.ai's Design, Build and Deploy agents run Salesforce delivery work across orgs, GitHub, GitLab and Jira, pause for approval at each stage, and record every action with plans, timestamps and artifacts. It clears because its loop is documented end to end, not because it is broad; its homepage refuses automated reading, so its deployment cell is unresolved.

The 8 vendors that miss by exactly one capability

These document four of the five and fail one. If you are already holding a shortlist this table is the most useful thing on the page, because it tells you the single question to ask each vendor rather than sending you back to the start. A miss is a documentation finding, not a verdict on the product: several of these vendors may well do the thing and have not published evidence that meets the standard.

Vendor	The one capability it does not document in full	Coverage
Kubiya	Human oversight and guardrails	11.5 / 14
NeuBird	Workflow orchestration	11.0 / 14
PagerDuty	Observability and auditability	10.5 / 14
Rootly	Human oversight and guardrails	10.5 / 14
Causely	Workflow orchestration	9.5 / 14
Chamber	Workflow orchestration	9.5 / 14
Metoro	Observability and auditability	9.0 / 14
Harness	Observability and auditability	7.5 / 14

Common questions

How do production ops agent vendors rank for automated incident resolution in 2026?

Fifteen of the 38 vendors in the Agentic Index SRE and DevOps lane document the complete resolution loop in full: the signal starts the agent, it reaches the stack for evidence, it runs multi step work, the work leaves an auditable record, and a human governs what changes in production. Ordered by total coverage across all 14 capabilities they are Komodor, Fabrix.ai, Edge Delta, Corelayer, Doctor Droid, Itential, NudgeBee, TierZero, Bluebricks, Hyground, Resolve AI, incident.io, AppFactor, Better Stack and SRE.ai. That is 39.5% of the lane. Eight more sit exactly one capability short, and three of those eight fail on the same one, multi step workflow orchestration.

Which of these actually run 24x7 without a human starting them?

Of the 38 vendors in the lane, 36 document triggers and channel coverage in full, meaning an alert, webhook or monitor starts the agent with nobody typing, more than any other capability on the bar. Integrations and tool calling are documented in full by 33, and only one of those reaches your stack without a documented trigger. The test still belongs in the demo: ask to see the agent open an investigation with no human input at all.

Can these agents show you what they did?

Most of them now can. Of the 38, 23 document observability and auditability in full, and it is the sole blocker for only three of the eight vendors one capability short, PagerDuty, Metoro and Harness. Only six of the 24 vendors that document human oversight in full leave the record undocumented. For a category whose pitch is resolving incidents while nobody is watching, the record is still the artifact to ask for first, because it is the one you read the next morning.

What is the difference between an AI SRE and incident management software?

Incident management software coordinates humans: it pages the right person, opens the channel, tracks the timeline and publishes the status page. An AI SRE investigates: it queries telemetry, forms and discards hypotheses, identifies a cause and in some cases proposes or applies the fix. The distinction is collapsing, and several entries on this list do both. What separates them in practice is whether the agent starts itself, and whether anything it did is readable afterwards.

Do any of these resolve incidents fully autonomously?

None of the fifteen document unattended remediation without a governing control, and that is by construction: human oversight and guardrails is one of the five capabilities on the bar, so a vendor that removed the approval gate would fall off this list rather than climb it. Doctor Droid fixes through runbooks the team approves, Hyground asks before any write action, NudgeBee gates changes behind a person, and Better Stack states plainly that its agent takes no action without approval. Vendors marketing higher autonomy exist in this lane, and some sit in the near miss table below or further down.

How is this different from an analyst market guide for AI SRE tooling?

Every grade here comes from the vendor's own public materials, read and recorded against a fixed 14 capability taxonomy, with no vendor briefings, no submissions, no paid placement and no vendor review before publication. The bar is mechanical and stated in full, so you can disagree with it and recompute. It also names what each vendor fails rather than only what it does, which is why the near miss table below names the one capability each vendor is missing.

Method, and one difference from most of the sibling pages worth stating plainly: the editorial rankings on this site mostly run the same horizontal pool of agentic AI platforms and differ only in the bar applied to it. This one changes the pool, as the AI SOC page does. Membership here is the SRE and DevOps lane, 38 vendors by primary or secondary category out of 1,061 researched, because keeping a service up is a vertical job rather than a horizontal capability, and a buyer asking who resolves incidents is not asking which general purpose agent builder happens to clear an orchestration axis. Every grade comes from the vendor's own public materials under the Agentic Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement and no vendor has reviewed this page. Data last verified October 18, 2026. How this evidence is graded

Production ops agents ranked for automated incident resolution (2026)

The resolution loop, and how the 38 vendors score against it

The 15 vendors that document the full resolution loop

1.Komodor

2.Fabrix.ai

3.Edge Delta

4.Corelayer

5.Doctor Droid

6.Itential

7.NudgeBee

8.TierZero

9.Bluebricks

10.Hyground

11.Resolve AI

12.incident.io

13.AppFactor

14.Better Stack

15.SRE.ai