AI Visibility
Find out which competitors AI names when it does not name you, and which sources put them there.
Compare Against RivalsYour visibility score in isolation is hard to act on. The same score alongside the brands sharing your answers is not: it tells you which specific rivals occupy the slots you want, in which question types, and which documents put them there.
Last updated
Answers name a handful of brands, so every slot a competitor holds is one you do not. That makes competitor comparison the natural frame rather than an add-on. A score of 45 means something quite different when the leaders in your answers sit at 50 versus when they sit at 90: in the first case you are in the fight, in the second you are not being considered. This is also why cross-industry score comparisons are meaningless, and why we weight the competitor gap explicitly.
One of the more useful outputs is the list of brands appearing alongside you that you had not been tracking. Models group by problem solved rather than by industry categorisation, so a company you consider adjacent may be occupying your answers because buyers describe their problem in a way that reaches both of you. That is genuine market intelligence, and it usually arrives before it shows up anywhere else, because assistants reflect how buyers talk rather than how vendors categorise themselves.
The pattern of where you lose is the diagnosis, and each has a fairly specific cause.
You can supply competitors, and it helps to, but the discovered set is often more revealing than the named one. We extract candidate brands directly from the responses, which means the comparison reflects who the models actually place in your category rather than who you consider a threat. It also demands care: extracted names have to be validated, or you end up with generic phrases and product categories sitting in a competitor list, which makes the whole comparison worthless.
Pick the single prompt category with the widest gap and address its specific cause, rather than trying to close everything. If a rival owns comparison prompts, publish an honest comparison, including where they are the better choice, because a comparison that only flatters you reads as marketing to a model and to a reader. If they own review prompts, the work is earning reviews. Then re-check the same prompts next month and see whether the gap narrowed. It is slower than it sounds and considerably more reliable than broad content programmes.
Run the buyer prompts without naming anyone and collect every brand that appears. The recurring names are the ones models treat as your category, which is not always the list you would have written.
Models group by the problem being solved rather than by industry labels, and they weight whoever is documented well. A smaller company with strong third-party coverage frequently outranks a larger one with little.
Yes, and honestly. Comparison content is cited heavily because it directly answers a common question. A page that concedes where the competitor wins is more likely to be trusted and quoted than one that does not.
Yes. The same prompt set measures everyone appearing in the answers, so you get their trend alongside yours from the same run at no extra cost.