SaaS Ranking
Menu

New Relic: what they publish

newrelic.com · Monitoring and observability · checked 2026-10-11

57/100CBand C

Rank 8 of 46 in Monitoring and observability, where the median is 32.5.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-11. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

5 days since the newest dated result, 5 since the oldest. 12 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

New Relic

newrelic.com · Monitoring and observability

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
C 57of 100 Rank 8 of 46

Published commitments5 of 9 found

Measured behaviour2 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-11. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that New Relic has no such document.

Where New Relic sits in Monitoring and observability

  1. A0 0%
  2. B2 4%
  3. C8 17%
  4. D5 11%
  5. E17 37%
  6. F14 30%
46 vendors with a score; 3 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of New Relic is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What New Relic states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

No data processing agreement found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-11.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://newrelic.com/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://newrelic.com/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://newrelic.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://newrelic.com/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://newrelic.com/legal/data-processing-addendum – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://newrelic.com/legal/gdpr – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://newrelic.com/trust/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://newrelic.com/privacy/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Monitoring and observability: 12 of 46 companies

✗

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

No statement about data location found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-11.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://newrelic.com/security – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://newrelic.com/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://newrelic.com/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://newrelic.com/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://newrelic.com/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://newrelic.com/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://newrelic.com/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in Monitoring and observability: 15 of 46 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-11.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://newrelic.com/ – third-party requests before any interaction: bam.nr-data.net, cdn.intellimize.co, cdn.jsdelivr.net, cmp.osano.com, epsilon.6sense.com, fonts.googleapis.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Monitoring and observability: 1 of 48 companies

✗

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

No named certification found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-11.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://newrelic.com/security – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://newrelic.com/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://newrelic.com/trust-center – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://newrelic.com/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://newrelic.com/legal/security – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://trust.newrelic.com/ – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Certifications named in Monitoring and observability: 22 of 48 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-11.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://newrelic.com/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://newrelic.com/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://newrelic.com/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://newrelic.com/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://newrelic.com/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://newrelic.com/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Monitoring and observability: 8 of 47 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 7
✓

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

The actual list is published, not just a promise to keep one.

Source: https://newrelic.com/sub-processors · checked 2026-10-11

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Monitoring and observability: 10 of 46 companies

✓

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

A public status page with incident history.

Source: https://status.newrelic.com/ · checked 2026-10-11

Across the market: Status page with history in Monitoring and observability: 19 of 48 companies

✓

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

Actual numbers on a public page.

Source: https://newrelic.com/pricing · checked 2026-10-11

Across the market: Public pricing in Monitoring and observability: 38 of 48 companies

✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

  • HSTS max-age 63072000 seconds (730 days).
    Show the exact wording

    max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://newrelic.com/
  • HSTS options includeSubDomains, preload.
    Show the 2 exact wordings

    max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://newrelic.com/

    max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://newrelic.com/

Source: https://newrelic.com/ · checked 2026-10-11

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Monitoring and observability: 35 of 49 companies

✓

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

The vendor commits publicly to giving notice before the list changes.

Source: https://newrelic.com/sub-processors · checked 2026-10-11

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Monitoring and observability: 11 of 47 companies

✓

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

Served at /.well-known/security.txt.

Source: https://newrelic.com/.well-known/security.txt · checked 2026-10-11

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Monitoring and observability: 9 of 46 companies

✓

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

A data protection officer or a dedicated privacy address is named.

Source: https://newrelic.com/termsandconditions/privacy?has_gdpr=true · checked 2026-10-11

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Monitoring and observability: 15 of 46 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-04: 57 of 1002026-10-11: 57 of 100 2026-10-04 2026-10-11
Score over the last 2 runs we measured New Relic in: 57 (2026-10-04), 57 (2026-10-11).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

New Relic

7 found · 5 not found · 0 not measured across 12 public checks.

12 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-11.

Investigate 5 open evidence questions
  1. Data processing agreement

    Please share the current data processing agreement for the product and plan we are considering, including its annexes and signing process.

    Inspect this check
  2. Data location stated

    Which locations apply to our primary data, backups and support access? Which region can we select for this plan?

    Inspect this check
  3. Certifications named

    Please share the current certificate or audit report and its scope, covered legal entity, products and validity period.

    Inspect this check
  4. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  5. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.

Compared with

Each comparison lists only the criteria where the two differ, with the source for every one. All comparisons.