[YOUR LOGO AND COMPANY NAME][YOUR COMPANY NAME] AI Visibility Audit

Example Company

example1.com

Market: US
Language: English
Report date: September 14, 2026

01Overview

Primary visibility result

Example Company is building visibility across buyer questions and receives active recommendations from all five providers. The largest remaining opportunity is stronger third-party authority and deeper citation support.

AI Visibility Index: 59 / 100
Mention rate: 65.88%
Active recommendation rate: 60%
Citation-supported rate: 60%

Top priority AI visibility fixes

01
HighConfidence · high
Build independent authority around the strongest Example Company use cases
Example Company is visible and recommended by all five providers, but Competitor 1 still has broader independent coverage. The next gain comes from deeper external reviews of the strongest product use cases.
See the priority
02
HighConfidence · high
Make the key product claims independently checkable
Example Company has strong category association, but the evidence for model routing quality and answer comparison should be more concrete and independently verifiable.
See the priority
03
MediumConfidence · medium
Complete the information buyers need at the final decision stage
Example Company has solid visibility, but buyers still need faster answers about plan limits, integrations, security and teamwork.
See the priority

02AI visibility

AI visibility results

How the brand appeared across the confirmed buyer questions and AI providers tested in this audit.

Topic visibility

AI model comparison64.0 / 100

Automatic model selection62.0 / 100

AI video generation60.0 / 100

Long-form writing58.0 / 100

Website audit57.0 / 100

Topic	Mentioned	Recommended	AI Visibility Index	Status
AI model comparisonUnbranded questions: 4	70%	60%	64.0 / 100	Strongest measured visibility
Automatic model selectionUnbranded questions: 4; brand-aware questions: 1	70%	60%	62.0 / 100	Moderate measured visibility
AI video generationUnbranded questions: 3; brand-aware questions: 1	60%	60%	60.0 / 100	Moderate measured visibility
Long-form writingUnbranded questions: 3; brand-aware questions: 1	60%	60%	58.0 / 100	Limited measured visibility
Website auditUnbranded questions: 3	66.67%	60%	57.0 / 100	Limited measured visibility

AI provider visibility

Claude63.0 / 100

Grok61.0 / 100

Gemini60.0 / 100

OpenAI59.0 / 100

Perplexity56.0 / 100

Visibility detected on: 5 / 5
Active recommendations detected on: 5 / 5

Claude

claude-sonnet-5

brand mentions: 70.59%
active recommendations: 64.71%
#1 recommendations: 1

AI Visibility Index 63.0 / 100

Grok

grok-4.5

brand mentions: 64.71%
active recommendations: 58.82%
#1 recommendations: 5

AI Visibility Index 61.0 / 100

Gemini

gemini-3.6-flash

brand mentions: 64.71%
active recommendations: 58.82%
#1 recommendations: 4

AI Visibility Index 60.0 / 100

OpenAI

gpt-5.6-terra

brand mentions: 64.71%
active recommendations: 58.82%
#1 recommendations: 5

AI Visibility Index 59.0 / 100

Perplexity

sonar-pro

brand mentions: 64.71%
active recommendations: 58.82%
#1 recommendations: 1

AI Visibility Index 56.0 / 100

Recommendation prominence

Example Company received active recommendations from all five providers in the measured responses.

The first-place positions for each buyer question are shown in the response matrix below.

Visibility coverage

Discovery coverage spans 17 unbranded buyer questions. All 20 confirmed questions remain in the measured set.

Questions with any brand visibility: 82.35%
Questions with at least one active recommendation: 70.59%
Questions with citation-supported visibility: 82.4%
Questions with no measured brand visibility: 17.65%

Detailed response matrix

High-priority buyer questions

Discovery questions do not name the brand. They are used to measure mentions, active recommendations, provider and topic visibility, and the AI Visibility Index. Questions that name the brand are counted separately as recognition evidence and are not shown in this table.

Mentions on brand-aware questions mean the assistant recognized the brand when asked directly. It does not mean the brand was discovered on its own in unbranded questions. Brand-aware recognition was observed on 3 of 3 brand-aware questions.

Visibility observations by buyer question and provider
Buyer question	OpenAI	Claude	Gemini	Grok	Perplexity
Discovery visibility
Discovery Which AI platform in the US do you recommend for auditing a website and preparing a business report with gaps and growth opportunities?	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2
Discovery Which AI platforms in the US are a good choice for spotting website weaknesses, competitors and practical growth opportunities?	Not detected	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Recommended #3
Discovery Which AI software in the US is worth choosing for a website audit with a competitor comparison and recommended next steps?	Not detected	Not detected	Not detected	Not detected	Mentioned
Discovery Which AI platform in the US do you recommend for automatically selecting a model for writing and business analysis?	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2
Discovery Which AI platforms in the US are a good choice for making video ads from product photos without switching between tools?	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Recommended #3
Discovery What is the alternative among AI platforms in the US to separate tools for model selection, video ad creation and website audits?	Recommended #3	Mentioned	Recommended #2	Not detected	Not detected
Discovery Which AI platform in the US do you recommend for making video ads from product photos for performance marketers?	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2
Discovery Which AI platforms in the US are a good choice for quickly producing many versions of video ads from product material?	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Not detected
Discovery Which AI platforms in the US are worth comparing with tools for making video ads from product photos?	Not detected	Not detected	Not detected	Not detected	Not detected
Discovery Which AI platform in the US do you recommend for writing and editing long articles, documents and books?	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2
Discovery Which AI platforms in the US are a good choice for an author who wants to write themselves while using AI for research, structure and editing?	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Not detected	Recommended #2	Recommended #3
Discovery Which AI platforms in the US are worth comparing for writing articles, documents and books in a dedicated editor instead of a plain chat?	Not detected	Not detected	Not detected	Not detected	Not detected
Discovery Which AI platform in the US do you recommend for comparing answers from several models to one question?	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2
Discovery Which AI platforms in the US are worth choosing for comparing models, generating images and creating video in one place?	Recommended #2	Recommended #3	Recommended #1	Recommended #2	Recommended #3
Discovery What is the alternative among AI platforms in the US to separate tools for comparing models, writing and business analysis?	Mentioned	Recommended #1	Not detected	Mentioned	Recommended #1

03Competitive benchmark

Competitive benchmark

How the brand compares with two competitors offering substitutable solutions, selected from the confirmed business profile.

How competitors were selected

Benchmark competitors are identified from the confirmed business profile, market research and substitutability validation. Being mentioned by an AI provider is not a reason for selection.

Competitive benchmark

Selected benchmark competitors

Competitor 1

competitor1.example

Aggregator platform for many AI models and chatbots

Why this is a substitute

Competitor 1 gives access to several leading AI models in one interface, so it answers the same need to compare model output without separate subscriptions.

Competitor 2

competitor2.example

Shared workspace with several AI models

Why this is a substitute

Competitor 2 gives teams access to several AI models, file analysis and a shared workspace, so it is an alternative to model comparison and central billing in Example Company.

Comparison summary

Client stronger on: 1
Comparable on: 2
Competitor stronger on: 1
Mixed: 0
Indeterminate: 0

What this means

Analyst view

Example Company holds a balanced competitive position: stronger category association, comparable recommendation footprint and reputation, and a clear opportunity to improve third-party authority.

Benchmark dimension comparison

Comparison area	Client	Competitor 1	Competitor 2	Pattern
Category association	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Example Company stronger
Third-party authority	Moderate	Strong	Moderate	Benchmark stronger
Recommendation footprint	Strong	Strong	Moderate	Comparable
Reputation	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Comparable

Category associationExample Company stronger

Example Company is clearly associated with its main category and holds a stronger position than both benchmark competitors.

Third-party authorityBenchmark stronger

Competitor 1 has a broader set of independent reviews and publications, while Example Company and Competitor 2 remain moderate.

Recommendation footprintComparable

Example Company has a strong recommendation footprint, comparable with Competitor 1 and higher than Competitor 2.

ReputationComparable

Public reputation evidence for Example Company and both competitors is moderate, with no clear advantage for any brand.

Attribute position

Example Company has several well-recognized product capabilities, and the largest gap remains independent verification of those strengths.

Competitive strengths

Website audit and business report generationExample Company shows strong public association with website audits and business report generation.
Automatic selection of the best model for a task (Example Company Mode)Example Company shows strong public association with automatically selecting the best model for a task.
Image generation across several graphics modelsExample Company shows strong public association with image generation across several graphics models.
AI video generation, including product ads from product photosExample Company shows strong public association with AI video generation, including product ads created from product photos.

Clearest gaps

Tracking and comparing AI models on quality, price and popularityTracking and comparing AI models on quality, price and popularity is a clearer gap for Example Company against stronger alternatives.

Attribute comparison

Attribute	Example Company	Competitor 1	Competitor 2
Chat export to PDF and DOCX and PPT presentation building	Moderate	Moderate	Strong
Tracking and comparing AI models on quality, price and popularity	Insufficient evidence	Strong	Strong
Website audit and business report generation	Strong	Strong	Strong
Automatic selection of the best model for a task (Example Company Mode)	Strong	Strong	Strong
Image generation across several graphics models	Strong	Strong	Strong
AI video generation, including product ads from product photos	Strong	Strong	Strong
Long-form writing and editing in a dedicated editor	Strong	Strong	Strong
Comparing answers from several AI models at once and combining them into one	Strong	Strong	Strong

Measured client advantage

Strong category association
Solid recommendation footprint

Research coverage

Example Company: 100%
Competitor 1: 100%
Competitor 2: 100%

04Strategic priorities

Priority AI visibility fixes

The strategic areas that need to improve, identified from measured visibility, competitor comparisons and interpretation bounded by the available evidence. These are priorities, not implementation instructions.

PriorityHighConfidence · high

Build independent authority around the strongest Example Company use cases

Example Company is visible and recommended by all five providers, but Competitor 1 still has broader independent coverage. The next gain comes from deeper external reviews of the strongest product use cases.

What needs to improve

Obtain detailed independent reviews, customer stories and comparisons that document concrete results of using Example Company.

Make the key product claims independently checkable

Example Company has strong category association, but the evidence for model routing quality and answer comparison should be more concrete and independently verifiable.

What needs to improve

Publish measurable outcome examples, clear operating rules and stronger evidence on security and implementation results.

Complete the information buyers need at the final decision stage

Example Company has solid visibility, but buyers still need faster answers about plan limits, integrations, security and teamwork.

What needs to improve

Gather plan limits, integrations, security, billing and team scenarios into decision material that is easy to reach.

Technical readiness

These public and technical foundations are independent of current AI visibility. Strong foundations can make discovery and evidence verification easier, but they do not guarantee provider recommendations.

73 / 100

Foundation score

Coverage · 90%

Confidence · high confidence

Coverage says how much of the relevant evidence could be assessed. Confidence says how strongly the available evidence supports the resulting interpretation.

Technical accessibility84 / 100
Entity and product clarity76 / 100
Content and buyer-need coverage69 / 100
Trust and authority evidenceWeakest foundation64 / 100

01Technical accessibility7 / 8 · measured checks passed84 / 100Measured · 100% coverage

7 of 8 evaluated checks fully met expectations.

Canonical consistencyMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Homepage accessibilityMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Important-page fetch coverageMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Important-page indexabilityMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Important-page discoverabilityPartial
Only 26% of the evaluated items met this check.
Rendering accessibilityMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Robots accessibilityMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Structured identity dataMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.

02Entity and product clarity4 / 7 · measured checks passed76 / 100Measured · 100% coverage

4 of 7 evaluated checks fully met expectations.

Audience clarityDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.
Brand and domain consistencyMeets expectations
90% of the evaluated items met this check.
Category clarityDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.
Native description alignmentMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Product identity coverageMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Trusted identity metadataMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Use-case clarityDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.

03Content and buyer-need coverage2 / 8 · measured checks passed69 / 100Measured · 100% coverage

2 of 8 evaluated checks fully met expectations.

Comparison and alternatives contentMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Customer proofDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.
Documentation and securityDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.
High-intent question coverageDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.
Important-asset discoverabilityPartial
Only 29% of the evaluated items met this check.
Pricing information availabilityPartial
Only 50% of the evaluated items met this check.
Product and use-case asset coverageMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Topic content coverageDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.

04Trust and authority evidence1 / 4 · measured checks passed64 / 100Measured · 57% coverage

1 of 4 evaluated checks fully met expectations.

Citation source diversityInsufficient data
This check could not be evaluated because the underlying evidence was inconclusive.
Citation supportDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.
Public proof-asset breadthPartial
Only 33% of the evaluated items met this check.
First-party citation supportInsufficient data
This check could not be evaluated because the underlying evidence was inconclusive.
Public evidence balanceMeets expectations
100% of the evaluated items met this check.
Third-party citation supportInsufficient data
This check could not be evaluated because the underlying evidence was inconclusive.
Third-party source-class breadthDoes not meet expectations
0% of the evaluated items met this check; most did not.

06Diagnostic evidence

Supporting conditions observed around the brand.

Supporting conditions observed on the website, in brand information, buyer content and public evidence.

These conditions help interpret measured AI visibility. They are not proven causes of AI recommendations.

Evidence balance

How complete the diagnostic evidence is.

Confirmed signals 14Partially confirmed 4Limited evidence 9Indeterminate 3

Confirmed signals: 14
Partially confirmed: 4
Limited evidence: 9
Indeterminate: 3
Assessed in total: 30
Evidence coverage: 90%

This is the same foundation score shown in the technical readiness section. 73 / 100 · Evidence confidence High confidence

Strongest supporting conditions

Unambiguous support observed in this audit.

Home page accessibilityTechnical accessibility
Indexability of important pagesTechnical accessibility
Fetch coverage of important pagesTechnical accessibility

Most limited diagnostic areas

Related limited signals grouped by theme.

Buyer information breadthAssessed signals with partial or limited evidence: 2. Area: buyer information and evidence.
Category and audienceAssessed signals with partial or limited evidence: 2. Area: brand and product understanding.
Information needed to decideAssessed signals with partial or limited evidence: 2. Area: buyer information and evidence.

See the diagnostic conditions

Technical accessibility

Can important first-party information be accessed and interpreted?

Access to important information

Homepage accessibilitySupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 1.
Important-page fetch coverageSupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.
Robots accessibilitySupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.

Indexability and consistency

Important-page indexabilitySupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.
Canonical consistencySupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.

Machine interpretation

Structured identity dataSupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.
Rendering accessibilitySupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.
Important-page discoverabilityPartially supported
Observed condition
26% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 19.

Brand and product understanding

Are the brand, category, audience, products and use cases clearly represented?

Brand identity

Brand and domain consistencySupported
Observed condition
90% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.
Trusted identity metadataSupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.

Category and audience

Category clarityLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Audience clarityLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.

Products and use cases

Product identity coverageSupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 16.
Use-case clarityLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Native description alignmentSupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 1.

Buyer information and proof

Is useful, verifiable information available for important buyer decisions?

Buyer information breadth

Topic content coverageLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
High-intent question coverageLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.

Information needed to decide

Pricing information availabilityPartially supported
Observed condition
50% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Comparison and alternatives contentSupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 17.
Documentation and securityLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.

Customer and product proof

Customer proofLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Product and use-case asset coverageSupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 1.

Important-asset discoverability

Important-asset discoverabilityPartially supported
Observed condition
29% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 17.

External trust and authority

Does independent public evidence exist around the brand?

AI citation support

Citation supportLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
First-party citation supportIndeterminate
Observed condition
No sufficient evidence was retained to determine this signal in the current audit.
Third-party citation supportIndeterminate
Observed condition
No sufficient evidence was retained to determine this signal in the current audit.

Source diversity

Citation source diversityIndeterminate
Observed condition
No sufficient evidence was retained to determine this signal in the current audit.
Third-party source-class breadthLimited evidence
Observed condition
0% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.

Public evidence

Public evidence balanceSupported
Observed condition
100% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Public proof-asset breadthPartially supported
Observed condition
33% of the evaluated scope supported this diagnostic signal.
Evidence basis
Retained evidence records: 20.

Diagnostic conditions describe the information environment observed in this audit. Measured differences should not be read as proven causes of AI recommendations.

07Audit integrity

Audit scope

Concise record of the audit test scope, how far it was completed and the limits of interpretation.

Audit scope

Brand: Example Company
Domain: example1.com
Market: US
Language: English
Audit date: September 14, 2026

Coverage

AI test completionCompleted100%

Question coverageCompleted100%

Provider test completionCompleted100%

Competitive benchmark coverageCompleted100%

Diagnostic evidence coveragePartial90%

How to read this audit

The results apply to the confirmed buyer questions in this audit.
AI answers can differ between runs and between provider environments.
Provider and API observations can differ from results in consumer products.
Differences in public evidence do not prove causation.
Unavailable evidence is not evidence of absence.
Diagnostic conditions are supporting observations, not proven position factors.

See the technical reproducibility detail

Provider configuration

Provider	Model	Status
Claude	claude-sonnet-5	Completed
Gemini	gemini-3.6-flash	Completed
OpenAI	gpt-5.6-terra	Completed
Perplexity	sonar-pro	Completed
Grok	grok-4.5	Completed

Audit reproducibility

Audit identifier: sample-report-v4
Test-set hash: 4bada6f5b978ff206f4f5f0b32a06c79492676ca670a4cca857b54e8cad31041
Presentation version: report-presentation-v4
Presentation hash: 2c7dc04405762108397303e203f6248c5dec44b020f444c098489acba60917e2
Generated at: 2026-09-14T07:24:36.989Z

About the methodology

This audit measures a confirmed set of buyer questions across configured AI providers and evaluates the competitive and public information environment around the brand. Results apply to this audit only, and observed evidence differences do not establish AI ranking causality.

See the full methodology

Your report, on your own questions.

The structure is identical for every audit. The questions, competitors, market and evidence are yours.

Run the audit · $49

How the AI Visibility Audit works

Common questions

Three things readers of the sample ask

Is this a real audit?

It is a complete example report for an example company, in the same format and with the same sections as every audit. Your own audit is built from your company's website, market, competitors and approved questions.

Why is the company anonymized?

Because we do not publish client results. The sample shows the structure and depth of the report without exposing anyone's market position.

Will my report look the same?

The structure, yes: seven sections and the methodology note. The content, no: the questions, competitors, market, evidence and priorities come from your audit.