Compare
Embrace vs Luciq
Both cover mobile crash and performance observability; Luciq (formerly Instabug) leans on AI root-cause correlation, Embrace on session reconstruction.
Side by side
| Embrace | Luciq | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Embrace (Palo Alto Networks) | Luciq (formerly Instabug) | ||||||
| Pricing model | Free tier + paid plans | Usage-based | ||||||
| Free tier | Yes | — | ||||||
| Deployment | Cloud | Cloud | ||||||
| Open source | No | No | ||||||
| Best for | Mobile engineering teams that need crash and performance observability built specifically for native apps. | Mobile engineering teams that want crash/bug reporting plus AI-assisted root-cause correlation. | ||||||
| Pricing | Free covers up to 1M sessions/year for up to 5 users; Pro is metered at $0.80 per 1,000 sessions with an $80/month minimum; Enterprise is custom quoted with unlimited users and longer retention.
Prices read from the vendor's own page on September 21, 2026. Vendors change prices; check the source before you budget. | Priced on daily active users and seats rather than logs, sessions, or traces, under one plan structure with Enterprise and Enterprise Premier support tiers; no public price list. Checked on the vendor's own page on September 21, 2026: no prices are published. Expect to be quoted. | ||||||
| Features |
|
|
Verdict
Embrace and Luciq (the company formerly known as Instabug, rebranded in September 2025) both do the same core job: mobile-first crash reporting and performance monitoring that reconstructs what happened technically — network calls, view transitions, device state — leading up to a failure, and ties it back to the specific user session. Both are built specifically for native iOS and Android apps, where general-purpose APM tooling has historically had weaker visibility.
The framing differs. Embrace emphasizes session-level reconstruction and was acquired by Palo Alto Networks (announced late 2025, completed 2026), extending it into a broader security and observability portfolio and adding web performance monitoring via Embrace's own acquisition of SpeedCurve. Luciq's newer pitch is "agentic" observability — AI agents that automatically correlate crashes, network failures and performance regressions across releases to surface a likely root cause, building on Instabug's original bug-reporting roots (screenshots, repro steps submitted by users or testers).
Choose Embrace if
- You want crash and performance data unified with web performance monitoring in one place.
- Session volume, not seats or DAU, is the pricing dimension you'd rather be metered on — Embrace bills per 1,000 sessions.
- You value being backed by a large security/observability portfolio (Palo Alto Networks) for long-term roadmap and integration.
Choose Luciq (Instabug) if
- You want AI-assisted correlation across crashes and performance regressions rather than manually connecting the dots.
- In-app bug reporting with user-submitted screenshots and repro steps is part of your QA workflow, not just automated crash capture.
- You'd rather be priced by daily active users and seats than by session volume.
What they share
Neither is a marketing or ASO tool — both sit entirely on the engineering side, bought and used by mobile engineering teams rather than growth or marketing. Both support native and, to varying degrees, cross-platform apps, and both integrate with the same incident tooling (Slack, PagerDuty, Jira). Get session or DAU volume estimates from your own crash-reporting logs before comparing quotes, since neither vendor publishes a full price list and the metered unit differs between them.
Last reviewed September 22, 2026