# incident.io vs Rootly: An Incident Management comparison for 2026
Spend an afternoon researching these two and you will notice something odd: they write about each other constantly. incident.io publishes a long review of Rootly's pricing and AI. Rootly's customer stories include titles like "Why Capa replaced incident.io with Rootly." Both vendors have pages explaining why you should switch from the other one. That level of mutual attention usually means two companies are chasing the same buyer, and in this case the buyer is probably you: an engineering team that lives in Slack, is tired of paying PagerDuty prices, and wants AI that does more than summarize.
On paper the overlap is nearly total. Both run incidents inside Slack and Microsoft Teams, both have their own on-call products, both ship an AI SRE and an MCP server, and both include status pages and retrospectives. They sit side by side on most [incident management tool shortlists](https://betterstack.com/community/comparisons/incident-management-tools/), and G2 reviewers give them the same 4.8 rating.
[ad-uptime]
The real difference is how much each tool decides for you. **incident.io is the opinionated one, with a strong built-in model of how an incident should run** and defaults that get most teams working within a day. Rootly makes the opposite bet. **Rootly is the configurable one**, built to let you shape workflows, paging rules, and even the prompts behind its AI to match how your team already works, and it prices most of that into the base product rather than selling it as upgrades.
Neither choice is wrong, but they suit different teams, and the rest of this comparison is about figuring out which one describes yours.
## The short version
The table covers what most teams ask first. Several rows look identical and play out very differently, which the sections below explain.
| Category | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **Philosophy** | Opinionated defaults, fast to adopt | Configurable platform, shaped to your process |
| **Founded** | 2021, London, by former Monzo engineers | 2020, by JJ Tang and Quentin Rousseau |
| **Chat platforms** | Slack and Microsoft Teams | Slack and Microsoft Teams |
| **On-call** | Add-on to the incident plans | Separate On-Call product, also sold standalone |
| **Paging targets** | Schedules and escalation paths | Teams, users, schedules, and Slack channels directly |
| **AI SRE** | ✔, Investigations | ✔, AI SRE, generally available since May 2026 |
| **Editable AI prompts** | ✘ | ✔, AI blocks with visible prompts |
| **MCP server** | ✔, hosted | ✔, for IDE and CLI |
| **Call transcription** | ✔, Scribe | ✔, meeting transcription |
| **Service catalog** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **Status pages** | Included, limits by plan | Included |
| **Free non-responder users** | ✔, viewers are free | ✔, free stakeholder tier |
| **Free plan** | Up to 5 users | ✘, 2-week trial |
| **Entry price with on-call** | $25 per user per month on Team, annual | $40 per user per month on Essentials |
| **On-premise connectivity** | ✘ | ✔, Edge Connector |
| **Compliance** | SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, HIPAA on Enterprise | SOC 2, GDPR, HIPAA |
| **Collects logs, metrics, traces** | ✘ | ✘ |
## Opinionated defaults versus a configurable platform
Nearly every other difference between these tools traces back to this one. It decides how quickly you get going, how much maintenance you sign up for, and how the product feels a year in.
### incident.io: a strong model of how incidents should run
incident.io ships with clear ideas about roles, severities, statuses, and what should happen after an incident closes. You can customize a lot, especially on the Pro plan, but you are customizing within a model the product already has. For most teams that is a relief. You install it, run `/inc` during your next outage, and the tool quietly teaches your team a sensible process.
G2 reviewers find incident.io slightly easier to set up and administer than Rootly, and that matches the design. The cost of strong opinions shows up when your process is unusual. If your incident flow has steps the model does not expect, you will spend more time working around the product than working with it.
### Rootly: shaped to the process you already have
Rootly assumes your team already has an incident process and wants a tool that fits it. Its workflow engine branches on almost any condition, its paging can target people and channels directly instead of routing everything through services, and its AI is built from blocks whose prompts you can open and edit. Teams that migrate from a heavily customized PagerDuty setup, or that run incidents for several very different products, often appreciate that flexibility.
The trade-off is that someone has to own the configuration. incident.io's own review of Rootly makes this point bluntly, arguing that deep customization becomes a maintenance job for the same SRE team that is supposed to be fighting fires. That argument comes from a competitor, so read it with care, but it describes a real risk. A flexible tool reflects the quality of the person who configured it.
| Design aspect | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **Default experience** | Opinionated, works out of the box | Flexible, expects you to shape it |
| **Customization depth** | Moderate, deepest on Pro | Deep across workflows, paging, and AI |
| **Setup effort** | Lower | Higher, depending on how much you customize |
| **Ongoing maintenance** | Light | Depends on how much you configured |
| **Best for** | Teams adopting a process | Teams encoding an existing process |
## A launch-day incident in each tool
To see how that difference feels in practice, take one realistic incident. It is 11am on a product launch day. A deploy goes out, search latency triples, and a Grafana alert fires while half the company is watching the launch in a Slack channel.
### In incident.io
The alert comes in through an alert route, which groups it with a related latency alert and pages the search team's on-call engineer. He acknowledges on his phone and declares a SEV2 from the alert in two taps.
incident.io opens the channel, makes him incident lead, and uses the Catalog to link the search service and its owning team. A workflow posts a short notice in the launch channel so the marketing team knows someone is on it. Investigations starts working in parallel, and within a couple of minutes it posts in the thread that the latency spike lines up with the deploy that went out at 10:52, with a link to the change. A product manager joins the call, Scribe transcribes it, and the decision to roll back ends up on the timeline without anyone writing it down.
Almost everything here happened because of defaults. The team configured the alert route and a single workflow, and the rest came with the product.
### In Rootly
The same Grafana alert reaches Rootly On-Call. Because Rootly can page a team directly, the alert goes straight to the search team's current on-call engineer without a service mapping in between. He acknowledges and declares from Slack.
The team's launch-day workflow, written specifically for this week, fires on the SEV2. It posts a status summary in the launch channel, invites the release manager, pins the deploy log, and creates a follow-up ticket in Linear. Rootly's AI SRE runs its own checks in parallel and posts a root-cause hypothesis with a confidence score and its reasoning visible in the thread. The engineer can see why it suspects the 10:52 deploy, not only that it does. When the incident closes, Rootly drafts the retrospective from the timeline.
The outcome matches incident.io's. The difference is that Rootly's run depended more on a workflow the team built for the occasion, which is exactly the kind of flexibility Rootly customers pay for.
| During the incident | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **Declaring** | `/inc` or from an alert | Slack command or from an alert |
| **Who gets paged** | Schedule behind the escalation path | Teams, users, schedules, or channels directly |
| **Automation** | Default behavior plus workflows | Custom workflows with branching logic |
| **AI during the incident** | Investigations posts findings in the thread | AI SRE posts hypotheses with confidence and reasoning |
| **Call notes** | ✔, Scribe | ✔, meeting transcription |
| **Timeline** | ✔, automatic | ✔, automatic |
[summary]
### The deploy log and the logs in one place
In both runs, the AI pointed at the deploy, but confirming it still meant opening Grafana and searching the logs from the search service by hand. Better Stack keeps logs, metrics, and traces in the same platform as the incident, so the responder can live tail the affected service and see the new errors appear the moment the deploy lands, without leaving the tool that paged them.
**Seeing the errors next to the incident turns a suspicion into a confirmed cause in seconds.** [Try Live Tail](https://betterstack.com).
[/summary]
## On-call and paging
Both vendors built on-call products to pull teams off PagerDuty and Opsgenie, and with Opsgenie shutting down in April 2027, this is often the section that decides the purchase. The two products differ in what you can page and in how on-call is sold.
### incident.io On-call: humane scheduling as an add-on
incident.io On-call has the scheduling features teams ask for: rotations, overrides, shadow rotations for new engineers, holiday calendars, and on-call pay reporting. The mobile app breaks through do-not-disturb, and live call routing is available on Pro. Alert routes group noisy alerts before they page anyone, and AI helps with triage.
On-call is an add-on to every paid plan, $10 per user per month on Team and $20 on Pro with annual billing, and you only pay it for people on rotation.
### Rootly On-Call: page people, not just services
Rootly On-Call pages teams, individual users, schedules, and Slack channels directly, which removes the placeholder services and dummy users that PagerDuty migrations tend to leave behind. Around that it adds the hygiene features newer teams expect: native shadow rotations, automatic detection of gaps in coverage, bulk overrides across several schedules, Slack user groups that stay in sync with who is on call, round-robin assignment, and an on-call pay calculator. Rootly also maintains On-Call Health, an open-source tool that looks for early signs of responder overload.
Rootly On-Call is its own product, priced at $20 per user per month on the Essentials tier and sold standalone if you only want paging. If you are coming from PagerDuty specifically, we compared that switch in detail in [PagerDuty vs Rootly](https://betterstack.com/community/comparisons/pagerduty-vs-rootly/).
| On-call feature | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **Rotations and overrides** | ✔ | ✔, including bulk overrides |
| **Shadow rotations** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **Coverage gap detection** | Via schedule warnings | ✔, automatic |
| **Page users and Slack channels directly** | Via escalation paths | ✔, native |
| **Slack user groups synced to on-call** | ✘ | ✔ |
| **On-call pay reporting** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **Responder overload tooling** | ✘ | ✔, open-source On-Call Health |
| **Live call routing** | ✔, Pro and above | ✔ |
| **Pricing** | $10 to $20 per user per month add-on | $20 per user per month, or standalone |
[summary]
### Escalation that starts at the monitor
Both on-call products wait for Grafana, Datadog, or another monitor to decide something is wrong, then forward the alert. Better Stack runs its own uptime monitors, log alerts, and metric thresholds, and those trigger its escalation policies directly. There is one less integration between noticing the problem and waking the right person, and on-call is part of the $29 responder price rather than a separate line item.
**When the monitor and the escalation policy live in one product, a broken webhook can't delay the page.** [See escalation policies](https://betterstack.com).
[/summary]
## Workflows and customization
This is where the philosophical split turns into daily practice. Both tools automate the busywork of an incident, but they differ in how far you can push the automation.
### incident.io workflows: rules around a clear model
incident.io workflows trigger on incident events and run steps: page someone, post an update, invite users, create a Jira or Linear ticket, set a custom field. Conditions can use Catalog data, so ownership and customer impact can shape what happens. Pro adds custom incident types and customizable post-incident processes, which is where most teams find the flexibility they need. What you cannot easily do is throw out incident.io's model of roles and statuses and replace it with your own.
### Rootly workflows: branching logic across more of the product
Rootly's workflows branch on conditions and reach across more of the platform, including paging, status pages, retrospectives, and AI steps. You can build different flows for different products, customers, or environments, and Rootly integrates with more than 100 tools according to its own count. For a team with a mature process that it does not want to change, that depth is the main reason to choose Rootly.
The flip side appears in how much there is to maintain. A workflow system this flexible needs an owner, documentation, and occasional cleanup, or it turns into a pile of rules nobody fully understands.
| Workflows | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **Trigger model** | Incident events | Incident and alert events |
| **Conditional branching** | ✔ | ✔, deeper |
| **Custom incident types** | ✔, Pro and above | ✔ |
| **Workflow reach** | Incident lifecycle | Incident, paging, status pages, AI |
| **Integrations** | Broad | More than 100, per Rootly |
| **Maintenance burden** | Lower | Higher if heavily customized |
## AI: two different kinds of trust
Both vendors have put AI at the center of their pitch, and both have a real AI SRE, not only summaries. The interesting difference is how each one asks you to trust it.
### incident.io: Investigations, Scribe, and the finished answer
incident.io launched Investigations in mid-2025. When an alert fires, it looks at telemetry from your connected tools, recent code changes, and similar past incidents, and posts hypotheses into the channel. In incident.io's own walkthrough of a payments outage, it proposes a fix and opens the pull request. Around it sit AI incident names and summaries, suggested next steps, triage help, and drafted post-mortems. Scribe covers the call, and a hosted MCP server lets Claude and Cursor read incidents, alerts, schedules, and catalog data. The AI is included from the Team plan.
incident.io's approach is to give you a polished answer. You see what the AI found and what it recommends, and the product decides how the AI is prompted.
### Rootly: AI SRE with the workings on show
Rootly's AI SRE, generally available since May 2026, correlates alerts, runs several hypothesis checks in parallel, and presents a root cause with a confidence score and visible reasoning, plus suggested fixes. The @Rootly agent answers questions and takes actions in Slack, the mobile app carries AI for responders away from their laptops, and the platform drafts status updates and retrospectives. Rootly's AI blocks are transparent, so you can open the prompt behind each one and change it. Rootly also runs Rootly AI Labs, which publishes benchmarks on how models perform at SRE tasks, and it acquired ThinkHive in 2026 to strengthen the engineering behind its agents. Its MCP server connects your IDE and CLI.
Rootly's approach is to show you the workings. That suits teams who want to audit and tune what the AI does. incident.io has criticized Rootly's benchmarks for focusing on model comparisons rather than precision on individual suggestions, which is a fair question to put to Rootly during a trial, and an equally fair one to put to incident.io.
Neither AI can see data your integrations do not expose. If your deploys, dashboards, and logs are not connected, both AI SREs will have less to reason about than the demo suggests.
| AI capability | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **AI SRE root-cause analysis** | ✔, Investigations | ✔, AI SRE |
| **Confidence scores and visible reasoning** | Findings with supporting evidence | ✔, explicit |
| **Suggested fixes** | ✔, including pull requests | ✔ |
| **Editable prompts** | ✘ | ✔, AI blocks |
| **Chat agent** | ✔, in the incident channel | ✔, @Rootly in Slack |
| **Call transcription** | ✔, Scribe | ✔ |
| **Drafted retrospectives** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **MCP server** | ✔, hosted | ✔, IDE and CLI |
| **Published AI benchmarks** | ✘ | ✔, Rootly AI Labs |
[summary]
### Give the AI the raw data
Both AI SREs reason over whatever Grafana, Datadog, and GitHub expose through their integrations, so the quality of the answer depends on connections you maintain in another product. Better Stack's AI SRE and MCP server sit on the same platform that stores your logs, metrics, and traces, so an assistant can query the actual error lines and spans rather than a summary another tool passed along.
**The best AI root-cause analysis starts from the raw telemetry, not a secondhand summary of it.** [See the Better Stack MCP server](https://betterstack.com).
[/summary]
## Retrospectives and learning
After the incident, both tools draft a retrospective from the timeline and track follow-up work. The difference is how much structure and reporting you get on the plan you can afford.
incident.io drafts post-mortems, tracks follow-ups, and exports to the documentation tool you already use. On Pro, advanced insights add dashboards for incident volume, time to resolution, and on-call load, and you can customize the post-incident process per incident type. Rootly auto-generates retrospectives with AI, lets you build retrospective templates and workflows around them, and includes metrics on incident trends. Rootly's pitch is that retrospectives are part of the same configurable platform, so a retro can trigger follow-up workflows the same way an incident does.
For a mid-sized team, both give you usable learning tools without an Enterprise contract. The deciding factor is usually whether you want incident.io's ready-made post-incident flow or Rootly's ability to design your own.
| Retrospectives | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **AI-drafted retrospective** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **Custom templates** | ✔, Pro and above | ✔ |
| **Follow-up tracking** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **Workflows triggered by retros** | Limited | ✔ |
| **Reliability dashboards** | ✔, advanced insights on Pro | ✔ |
[summary]
### Post-mortems built from what the system did
Both tools write the retrospective from the incident record, which captures what people said and did in Slack. Better Stack builds post-mortems on the same platform as the telemetry, so the timeline can include when errors started, when latency recovered, and which deploy preceded the spike, not only when someone typed about it.
**A retrospective is more useful when its timeline comes from the system as well as the chat.** [See Better Stack post-mortems](https://betterstack.com).
[/summary]
## Status pages and stakeholders
Both include status pages and both let non-responders follow incidents for free, which matters more than it sounds once support, sales, and leadership all want updates.
incident.io's status pages update from the incident channel and support custom domains and component groups. The Team plan includes one public page, Pro adds one internal page, and unlimited pages and per-customer pages require Enterprise. Viewers who only join incident channels do not need paid seats. Rootly includes status pages on its plans and offers a free tier for stakeholders who need visibility but will never be paged, so executives and support staff can follow along without a seat.
If you run several products that each need a public page, compare the page limits carefully during the trial, because incident.io's caps below Enterprise are the most common complaint in third-party reviews.
| Status pages and stakeholders | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **Status pages included** | ✔, 1 public on Team | ✔ |
| **Unlimited pages** | Enterprise | Confirm limits for your tier |
| **Per-customer pages** | ✔, Enterprise | ✘ |
| **Updates from the incident** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **Free users for non-responders** | ✔, viewers | ✔, stakeholder tier |
## What neither tool can see
Everything in this comparison starts after an alert exists. Neither incident.io nor Rootly collects logs, stores metrics, records traces, or runs uptime checks. Both rely on Grafana, Datadog, New Relic, or whatever monitoring you already pay for, and both AI SREs are only as good as the telemetry those integrations expose.
That is normal for this category, but it belongs in your budget. Whichever tool you pick, your total cost is the incident platform plus a monitoring platform, and your responders will still switch between the two during most incidents.
| Observability | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **Logs, metrics, traces** | ✘ | ✘ |
| **Uptime checks** | ✘ | ✘ |
| **AI data source** | Connected integrations | Connected integrations |
## Pricing
Both vendors now publish prices, and the numbers are closer than either one's marketing suggests. The structure is where they differ.
### incident.io
incident.io's plans are:
1. **Basic:** free for up to 5 users, with single-team on-call and one status page.
2. **Team:** $15 per user per month billed annually, or $19 monthly, with AI features and multi-team on-call. On-call is an extra $10 per user per month.
3. **Pro:** $25 per user per month, adding advanced insights, custom incident types, and private incidents. On-call is an extra $20 per user per month.
4. **Enterprise:** custom, adding HIPAA, advanced access control, audit logs, and unlimited status pages.
You pay the on-call add-on only for people on rotation, and viewers are free.
### Rootly
Rootly lists Incident Response Essentials at $20 per user per month and On-Call Essentials at $20 per user per month, so a responder who also carries the pager costs $40 at list. A higher Scale tier is priced by quote. There is no permanent free plan, but a two-week trial is available, and stakeholders who only follow incidents can use a free tier. According to procurement data from Vendr, discounts of 20 to 40 percent off initial quotes are common, especially when buyers bring a competing quote or commit to several years. Since the obvious competing quote here is incident.io, plan on negotiating.
### What a 25-person team pays
Assume 25 engineers who all respond to incidents, 10 of whom are on the on-call rotation, billed annually at list price. Monitoring is not included for either tool.
| Cost component | incident.io Team | incident.io Pro | Rootly Essentials |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Incident response seats** | 25 at $15, so $375 per month | 25 at $25, so $625 per month | 25 at $20, so $500 per month |
| **On-call** | 10 at $10, so $100 per month | 10 at $20, so $200 per month | 10 at $20, so $200 per month |
| **AI SRE** | Included | Included | Included |
| **Free plan fallback** | ✔, Basic | ✔, Basic | ✘ |
| **Monthly total at list** | Around $475 | Around $825 | Around $700 |
At list, incident.io Team is the cheapest way into either platform, Rootly Essentials sits in the middle, and incident.io Pro is the most expensive. Negotiated Rootly deals can move that order, so get real quotes from both before you decide on price.
## Security, deployment, and reliability
Both cover the standard requirements, including SOC 2, GDPR, SSO, and SCIM. A few differences matter for particular teams.
Rootly offers an Edge Connector that lets it reach internal systems that cannot accept inbound connections, which helps if part of your stack runs on-premise or in a locked-down network. It includes HIPAA support and commits to up to 99.99 percent uptime. incident.io carries SOC 2 Type II and GDPR, with HIPAA, advanced access control, audit logs, multiple environments, and Slack Enterprise Grid on its Enterprise plan. Both serve large customers, so the question is less whether they are enterprise-ready and more which specific controls you need on the plan you are buying.
| Security and deployment | incident.io | Rootly |
|---|---|---|
| **SOC 2** | ✔, Type II | ✔ |
| **GDPR** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **HIPAA** | ✔, Enterprise | ✔ |
| **SSO and SCIM** | ✔ | ✔ |
| **Audit logs** | ✔, Enterprise | ✔ |
| **On-premise connectivity** | ✘ | ✔, Edge Connector |
| **Uptime commitment** | Plan dependent | Up to 99.99% |
## The companies behind them
Both are independent, venture-backed companies focused entirely on incident management, which is a meaningful contrast with tools like FireHydrant that now sit inside larger suites.
incident.io was founded in 2021 by engineers who had run incidents at Monzo. It has raised roughly $96 million, including a $62 million Series B led by Insight Partners in 2025, and says its platform has handled more than 250,000 incidents. It has more reviews on G2, 179 against Rootly's 65, and reviewers there rate its product direction slightly higher.
Rootly was founded in 2020 by JJ Tang and Quentin Rousseau and is backed by Y Combinator, 8VC, Renegade Partners, and Google's Gradient Ventures. It has been acquiring rather than being acquired, buying ThinkHive in 2026, and its customer list includes Replit, NVIDIA, LinkedIn, and Okta. Its go-to-market is aggressive, including offers to buy out your remaining PagerDuty contract so you do not pay twice during a migration.
## Which one fits your team
Choose incident.io if you want to be running well quickly and are happy to adopt a sensible process rather than design one. It suits teams without a dedicated owner for incident tooling, teams that want a free plan to start on, and teams where only a few engineers carry the pager, since on-call is billed only for them. Its polished AI answers and Scribe make it a strong fit for teams whose main pain is diagnosis and coordination.
Choose Rootly if you already have a process you trust and want the tool to follow it. It suits teams migrating from a heavily customized PagerDuty setup, teams running incidents for very different products, and teams who want to see and edit how their AI works. It is also the better fit if you need to reach on-premise systems through the Edge Connector or want paging that targets people and channels directly.
If you have trialed both and neither quite fits, our roundup of [incident.io alternatives](https://betterstack.com/community/comparisons/incident-io-alternative/) covers the other tools teams usually consider next.
## Final thoughts
The decision here is less about features and more about who you want making the decisions. **incident.io asks you to trust its defaults**, and in return you get a tool that most teams adopt in days and rarely have to maintain. Rootly asks you to trust your own process, and in return you get a platform you can shape around it, including the AI, provided someone on your team is willing to own that configuration.
So before you book either demo, ask one question internally: who on your team will own the incident tool a year from now? If the honest answer is nobody, pick incident.io. **If you already have someone who has been waiting for permission to build the perfect incident process, give them Rootly**, and then connect it to monitoring good enough to make either AI worth the money.
[summary]
### One assistant for the incident and the evidence
incident.io and Rootly both ship MCP servers, and both can only expose incident data, never the logs or traces behind it. Better Stack's MCP server covers the whole platform, so Claude or Cursor can query your logs with SQL, check who is on call, acknowledge an incident, and build a dashboard chart in the same conversation.
**With the incident and the telemetry behind one MCP endpoint, your assistant can investigate and respond without switching tools.** [Try Better Stack](https://betterstack.com).
[/summary]