Technical Account Manager 2

Datadog Bits AI pricing changed. Don't roll it out blind. Nick Vecellio Co-Founder and Principal Engineer, NoBS Yesterday at DASH, Datadog moved Bits onto the new AI Credits model, and the math changed dramatically. Under the old pricing, a Bits SRE investigation cost $25 at the committed rate, based on $500 per 20 investigations, or $36 on demand. Under AI Credits, Datadog's own telemetry across all accounts shows an average of 6.5 credits per investigation. At the committed rate of $500 for 500 credits, that puts the average investigation at about $6.50 per run. That is a 74-82% cut depending on how you were buying before. That's not just a discount; it's a signal. Datadog wants agentic operations to be something every engineer reaches for, not something teams save for sev-1s. And it's not just Bits SRE. The same AI Credits model powers Bits Chat, Bits Security, and Bits Dev, which means your organization now has a single consumption pool feeding four different agents. When a capability goes from rationed to routine, and from one front door to four, the question changes. It is no longer, "Can we afford to use it?" It is, "Are we using it well, and can we see who's using it?" Teams that have been through this curve before know how it ends. Log ingestion. Synthetics. Custom metrics. Every one of them started cheap and accessible. Every one of them punished organizations that skipped governance. The answer is governance, not hesitation. Get the access model and the visibility right up front, and the new pricing is pure upside. Start with access: Datadog's default roles need a closer look. The natural place to start is access, and this is where Datadog's default roles deserve scrutiny. The stock Standard role is much closer to Admin than it is to Read Only. That's fine when you're handing out trust, but it is overly permissive for anything with a meter on it. Datadog enables all AI Credits products by default for the Standard role. So if you've done nothing, most of your org can already spend from the credit pool. In its engagements, Nobs replace the three stock roles with a tiered framework purpose-built for cost-sensitive capabilities. With the Bits agent family now sharing a credit pool, Nobs has added a new piece to it. The tiered base roles. Read Only. Full visibility, zero write access, and zero cost exposure. This is the right default for most of the org. Limited Standard. Can create dashboards, monitors, and similar resources. Very low risk of incurring cost, but enough capability for day-to-day platform work. This is where most builders should live. SRE. Effectively Standard-level access plus additional controls, for the operators who need real reach into the platform. Admin. Full administrative access, granted sparingly. Very sparingly. Base tiers handle the broad strokes. Additive roles handle the exceptions. Datadog allows multiple role assignments where assigned permissions win, so an additive role grants a specific capability without promoting someone's entire access level. Its framework includes additive roles for User Management and Cost Management. As of this week, it also includes Bits Access. The Bits Access role is the cleanest example of why additive beats monolithic. A Read Only user granted Bits Access can run Bits agents and draw from the shared credit pool while remaining unable to edit any other resource in the account. You get adoption where you want it, scoped exactly as wide as you intend, with no collateral permissions dragged along for the ride. For what it's worth, granting Bits access to a Read Only user probably is not the right move. It is just a clean example of how additive roles work. What IS a good idea though - giving Datadog users with Incident Management seats access to Bits. Let's be realistic here, a real live incident is exactly where you want Bits in the picture. Watch the meter: AI Credits need cost visibility. Roles decide who can spend; cost monitoring tells you what is actually being spent before the invoice does. One honest caveat up front: as of launch, there are no real-time estimated usage metrics for AI Credits that you can alert on directly. That gap will probably close, but you should not wait for it. What you can do today is track AI Credit spend through your Plan & Usage page. The data isn't instant, but it is a world apart from the alternative, where the alternative is finding out about a runaway agent the same way teams find out about runaway log ingestion: Thirty days late. On an invoice. With no way to claw it back. Close the loop: measure adoption, not just spend. Here's where the governance story pays off twice. Bits activity is visible directly in the agent console, broken down by individual user. So alongside the cost data, you can answer the questions leadership will actually ask: Who is adopting these agents? Which teams are getting value? Is that new Bits Access role you granted last month being used, or sitting idle? Paired with cost visibility, you get both halves of the picture. Cost monitoring catches out-of-bounds spend before the invoice arrives. The console shows whether the spend you did incur maps to real adoption. That is the difference between a cost center you tolerate and a capability you can defend in a budget review. The point is not to slow Bits adoption down. The pricing change makes Bits agents accessible to everyone in your org. The framework above makes sure that access is deliberate: the right roles, granted additively; cost monitoring watching the meter; and per-user visibility closing the loop. None of it slows adoption down. It's what lets you say yes to adoption with confidence. If you want help mapping this framework onto your own Datadog account, that's exactly the kind of thing Nobs do. Reach out. FAQ: Datadog Bits AI, AI Credits & governance. Last updated: 2026-06-10 What are Datadog AI Credits? Which Datadog Bits products use AI Credits? Should every Datadog user get Bits access? Why use additive roles for Bits Access? Who should get Bits access first? How should teams monitor AI Credit usage?

Guggenheim has upgraded Datadog to Buy with a $175 price target, viewing the stock's 14.33% year-to-date decline as an attractive entry point. The upgrade centres on Datadog's positioning at the intersection of cloud migration and AI deployment. Datadog reported strong fourth-quarter fiscal 2025 results, with revenue of $953.19 million beating estimates by 3.76%. Full-year revenue reached $3.43 billion, up 28% year-over-year. The company now has 603 customers generating over $1 million in annual recurring revenue, up 31% year-over-year. The cloud monitoring platform provider's shares currently trade near $114, well below the 52-week high of $201.69. Management has guided fiscal 2026 revenue to between $4.06 billion and $4.10 billion. Forty-three analysts rate the stock a Buy.

Datadog has launched Datadog Experiments, an integrated platform for product testing and analytics that lets teams design, launch and measure experiments alongside real-time observability and business metrics. The offering targets enterprises previously relying on separate tools for experimentation, analytics and monitoring. The launch comes as Datadog shares trade around $116.50, down 12.9% year-to-date despite a 19.6% return over the past year. Shares currently trade approximately 36% below the consensus analyst price target of $181.52. By tying experimentation directly to observability and business metrics, Datadog aims to deepen its platform's role in customer workflows. However, profit margins have declined to 3.1% from 6.8% last year, and recent insider selling has been significant. Adoption rates among large customers will be key to watch.