AI Visibility Index · GEO/AEO
Who dominates AI answers in AI visibility
When you ask AI about AI-visibility tools (GEO/AEO), who does it recommend? We measured the space's Share of Voice with a confidence interval. Otterly (59%) and Profound (56%) lead; several brands that market themselves as "the #1" show up 0%. So do we (Nethral): 0% — shown with no tricks, it's our starting point.
| # | Brand | Share of Voice | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Otterly | 59.4% | 42–75 |
| 2 | Profound | 56.2% | 39–72 |
| 3 | Semrush | 46.9% | 31–64 |
| 4 | Peec AI | 37.5% | 23–55 |
| 5 | Scrunch | 37.5% | 23–55 |
| 6 | AthenaHQ | 25.0% | 13–42 |
| 7 | Writesonic | 21.9% | 11–39 |
| 8 | Goodie | 12.5% | 5–28 |
| 9 | Trakkr | 3.1% | 1–16 |
| 10 | Rankscale | 3.1% | 1–16 |
| 11 | Nethral | 0.0% | 0–11 |
| 12 | Knowatoa | 0.0% | 0–11 |
| 13 | CrowdReply | 0.0% | 0–11 |
How we measured it (and its limits)
We asked the AI, many times, the category questions a buyer would ask ("best tools to know if ChatGPT mentions my brand", "best GEO agencies", etc.) and counted the share of answers each brand appears in. We publish the confidence interval because one answer isn't a measurement: AI is non-deterministic.
- It's a snapshot of one engine (Gemini) and one language, not absolute truth nor an average across engines.
- n=32 is a small sample → wide intervals. What matters is the trend on re-measurement, not the point.
- Common-word names (Profound, Athena, Goodie) may over-count; raw citations are validated by hand.
- No cherry-picking: we include Nethral even at 0%. Honesty is the point.
The lesson
Marketing yourself as "the #1 AI visibility tool" is not the same as showing up when you ask the AI. The simplest test for any provider —us included— is to ask ChatGPT or Gemini about their category and see whether they appear. That's what we measure, for real and with a margin of error.
What's your Share of Voice in AI?
Free audit of your domain, with a confidence interval. No smoke.
Free audit