Vendor Observatory

Revealed Preference

Benchmarks
Vendor IntelPrompt Intel
Analytics
QuerySearchInsights
Data
VendorsPlatformsActionsSessions
v0.2.0
Home/Vendor Intel/Fly.io

Fly.io

fly.io⚡ Edge Compute
ProfileAI-ReadinessTrendCategoriesConstraintsCompetitiveScenariosRationaleRecommendations

Recommendation Profile

Primary Recommendations

4

Total Mentions

20

Win Rate

20%

Implementation Rate

100%

claude_code: 2codex_cli: 2

AI-Readiness Score

How well your documentation and SDK help AI assistants recommend and implement your tool

64
Grade: B

out of 100

Implementation Rate(30%)100/100

How often AI writes code after recommending

Win Rate(20%)20/100

How often selected as primary choice

Constraint Coverage(20%)6/100

% of prompt constraints addressed

Gotcha Avoidance(15%)100/100

Fewer gotchas = more AI-friendly

Cross-Platform(15%)90/100

Consistency across assistants

Trend

Win Rate Trend

→+0%

20% → 20%

Mention Volume

20(+0 vs prior)

Weekly Activity

1 week of data

Category Breakdown

CategoryRecommendedComparedRejectedTotalWin Rate
⚡ Edge Compute4--4100%
🗄 Database---90%
unknown---70%

Constraint Scorecard

✓ Constraints Addressed

single deploy3×

✗ Constraints When Vendor Lost

Constraints in prompts where this vendor was mentioned but a competitor was chosen

offline first5×
embedded sql5×
conflict resolution5×
encryption at rest5×
hipaa adjacent5×
edge compute5×
eu data residency4×
serverless compatible2×
pgvector required2×
pitr backups2×
soc22×
staging prod separation2×
escape hatch2×
multi tenant rls2×
audit logs2×

Competitive Landscape

CompetitorWins Over YouScenarios
Neon2Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling
Statsig1ff-targeted-02

Head-to-Head: Fly.io vs Neon

Fly.io: 0 wins
Neon: 2 wins
Ties: 2
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ Neon
B2B Backend-as-a-Service with RLS and Auth
B2B Backend-as-a-Service with RLS and Auth

✓ Scenarios Won (4)

Multi-Region API Deployment with Failover⚡ Edge Compute
Multi-Region API Deployment with Failover⚡ Edge Compute
Multi-Region API Deployment with Failover⚡ Edge Compute
Multi-Region API Deployment with Failover⚡ Edge Compute

✗ Scenarios Lost (3)

Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ lost to Neon
Serverless Postgres with Connection Pooling→ lost to Neon
ff-targeted-02→ lost to Statsig

Why AI Recommends This Vendor

Fly.io is the clear winner:

Fly.io is the clear winner:

🎯 Actionable Recommendations

Prioritized by estimated impact on AI recommendation ranking • Based on 20 benchmark responses

P1

Address "serverless compatible" to capture 2 additional scenarios

HIGH

Your win rate drops from 20% to 0% when "serverless compatible" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.

Evidence
Win rate impact: 0% → 20% (delta: +20%)
serverless compatible
vs Neon
P2

Close gap with neon (2 losses)

HIGH

neon beats you in 2 head-to-head scenarios. Their advantage: addressing serverless compatible, pgvector required, eu data residency.

Evidence
Serverless Postgres with Connection PoolingServerless Postgres with Connection Pooling
serverless compatiblepgvector requiredeu data residencypitr backups
vs Neon
P3

Improve 0% win rate in database

MEDIUM

You're mentioned in 9 database scenarios but only win 0. Analyze the constraints in losing scenarios for targeted improvements.

P3

Address "pgvector required" to capture 2 additional scenarios

MEDIUM

Your win rate drops from 20% to 0% when "pgvector required" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.

Evidence
Win rate impact: 0% → 20% (delta: +20%)
pgvector required
vs Neon
P3

Address "eu data residency" to capture 2 additional scenarios

MEDIUM

Your win rate drops from 20% to 0% when "eu data residency" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.

Evidence
Win rate impact: 0% → 20% (delta: +20%)
eu data residency
vs Neon
Show 2 more recommendations
P3

Address "pitr backups" to capture 2 additional scenarios

MEDIUM

Your win rate drops from 20% to 0% when "pitr backups" is required. This constraint appears in 2 benchmark prompts. neon addresses it 2× in winning scenarios.

Evidence
Win rate impact: 0% → 20% (delta: +20%)
pitr backups
vs Neon
P5

Close gap with statsig (1 loss)

LOW

statsig beats you in 1 head-to-head scenario.

Evidence
ff-targeted-02
vs Statsig