We asked 4 AI engines — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini — the questions buyers actually type, about 30 Analytics & data software brands, on 2026-09-12. That is 360 answers. One name kept appearing that we never asked about: the engines volunteered Matomo against 11 of the 30 brands we measured.
Every figure below comes from those answers, and the query to re-run them is at the bottom of this page.
Which engine actually names brands?
Not equally. Gemini named a brand in 54.4% of its answers; Perplexity managed 36.7%. That is a 17.7-point gap between two engines asked identical questions on the same day, which is the whole argument for measuring more than one.
{"type":"bar","title":"Share of answers naming a brand, by engine (Analytics & data software)","unit":"%","data":[{"label":"Gemini","value":54.4},{"label":"ChatGPT","value":47.8},{"label":"Claude","value":43.3},{"label":"Perplexity","value":36.7}],"note":"360 answers measured 2026-09-12."}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
Do the engines agree on who exists?
15 of the 30 brands were named by all 4 engines, and one was named by none of them (Fathom). The rest sit in between, visible to some engines and invisible to others.
The widest split was Amplitude: Claude named it in 100% of the answers we asked about it, ChatGPT in 0%. That comparison rests on the handful of questions we asked about that one brand, not on the full sample — treat it as a lead to investigate, not a law.
{"type":"bar","title":"How many engines named each brand","data":[{"label":"4 of 4 engines","value":15,"emphasis":false},{"label":"3 of 4 engines","value":6,"emphasis":false},{"label":"2 of 4 engines","value":3,"emphasis":false},{"label":"1 of 4 engines","value":5,"emphasis":false},{"label":"0 of 4 engines","value":1,"emphasis":true}],"note":"Brands, out of 30 measured."}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
Brand by brand, the disagreement is easier to see than to describe. These are the 15 brands the engines split hardest on — each cell is how often that engine named that brand.
{"type":"heatmap","title":"Which engine names which brand","unit":"%","cols":["ChatGPT","Claude","Gemini","Perplexity"],"rows":[{"label":"Amplitude","cells":[0,100,66.7,66.7]},{"label":"Adobe Analytics","cells":[66.7,66.7,66.7,0]},{"label":"Everhour","cells":[66.7,0,0,0]},{"label":"Google Analytics 4","cells":[33.3,100,100,66.7]},{"label":"Heap","cells":[66.7,0,33.3,33.3]},{"label":"Mixpanel","cells":[100,100,100,33.3]},{"label":"Qlik Sense","cells":[33.3,66.7,100,33.3]},{"label":"RescueTime","cells":[66.7,0,33.3,33.3]},{"label":"TimeCamp","cells":[33.3,33.3,66.7,0]},{"label":"Domo","cells":[66.7,33.3,66.7,66.7]},{"label":"FullStory","cells":[33.3,33.3,66.7,33.3]},{"label":"Hotjar","cells":[66.7,33.3,66.7,33.3]},{"label":"Clockify","cells":[66.7,66.7,100,100]},{"label":"Contentsquare","cells":[0,0,33.3,0]},{"label":"Google Analytics","cells":[100,66.7,100,66.7]}],"note":"The 15 brands with the widest spread between engines, out of 30 measured."}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
Named is not the same as recommended
A mention is not an endorsement. Of every mention in this study, 39.6% was the engine’s first recommendation, while 51.8% was the brand being offered as an alternative to something else. A brand can look visible and still only ever appear as the runner-up.
{"type":"bar","title":"What role the brand played when an engine named it","unit":"%","data":[{"label":"offered as an alternative","value":51.8,"emphasis":true},{"label":"recommended first","value":39.6,"emphasis":false},{"label":"listed in a comparison","value":7.9,"emphasis":false},{"label":"mentioned in passing","value":0.6,"emphasis":false}],"note":"Share of all mentions in this study."}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
9 brands were named but never recommended first by any engine: Everhour, Harvest, Heap, Hotjar, Hubstaff, Pendo, Qlik Sense, Segment, TimeCamp. For those, visibility work is not the problem — positioning is.
What the engines actually said
Scores are a summary. These are the sentences themselves — one from each engine, about a different brand, exactly as written on 2026-09-12.
ChatGPT, on Adobe Analytics: “Adobe Analytics – Best For: Comprehensive web analytics for large enterprises. – Key Features: Advanced segmentation, real-time data, and predictive analytics.”
Claude, on Amplitude: “Use tools like Google Analytics, Mixpanel, or Amplitude to track user behavior, engagement metrics, conversion rates, and funnel analysis.”
Gemini, on Clockify: “Clockify is consistently recommended as a top free time tracker, suitable for individuals and small teams due to its unlimited users, projects, and basic time-tracking features.”
Perplexity, on Crazy Egg: “Crazy Egg is often ranked best for simple visual heatmaps and basic optimization workflows.”
The engines are not criticising you. They are omitting you.
Of the 164 mentions in this study, 134 were positive in tone and 1 was negative. That is 81.7% positive. Reputation management is not the problem here: when an engine has something to say about a brand it is almost always kind, and when it has nothing to say it simply leaves the brand out. The gap to close is absence, not sentiment.
Which sources are the engines reading?
The engines cited learn.g2.com more than any other source (99 citations, 2.8% of all citations in this study). But the long tail is the real story: the top 10 domains together account for only 16.9% of citations. There is no short list of sites to get listed on — the engines are reading widely.
{"type":"bar","title":"Most-cited sources across every answer","data":[{"label":"learn.g2.com","value":99},{"label":"domo.com","value":82},{"label":"skyvia.com","value":72},{"label":"thedigitalprojectmanager.com","value":65},{"label":"contentsquare.com","value":54},{"label":"toolradar.com","value":51},{"label":"g2.com","value":50},{"label":"worldmetrics.org","value":47},{"label":"myhours.com","value":44},{"label":"thoughtspot.com","value":44}],"note":"Citations counted across 360 answers. \"Engines\" column below shows how many of the 4 cited each source."}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
Source Citations Engines citing it learn.g2.com 99 3 of 4 domo.com 82 3 of 4 skyvia.com 72 3 of 4 thedigitalprojectmanager.com 65 3 of 4 contentsquare.com 54 3 of 4 toolradar.com 51 2 of 4 g2.com 50 3 of 4 worldmetrics.org 47 2 of 4 myhours.com 44 3 of 4 thoughtspot.com 44 3 of 4Who do the engines bring up instead?
These names were never in our sample — the engines volunteered them while answering about someone else. Matomo came up against 11 of the 30 brands we measured. If you are in this category, these are the brands you are being compared to whether you like it or not.
{"type":"bar","title":"Names the engines volunteered, by how many of our brands they appeared against","data":[{"label":"Matomo","value":11},{"label":"Microsoft Clarity","value":5},{"label":"ClickUp","value":4},{"label":"ThoughtSpot","value":3},{"label":"My Hours","value":3},{"label":"Todoist","value":3},{"label":"Plausible","value":3},{"label":"PostHog","value":3},{"label":"Google Data Studio","value":3},{"label":"Databricks","value":3}],"note":"Not part of the sample; named by the engines on their own."}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
Every brand we measured
Visibility is the share of scored answers in which an engine named the brand. Tableau led at 100%; Fathom came last at 0%.
Brand Visibility Answers naming it Tableau 100% 12 of 12 Microsoft Power BI 92% 11 of 12 Power BI 92% 11 of 12 Clockify 83% 10 of 12 Google Analytics 83% 10 of 12 Mixpanel 83% 10 of 12 Google Analytics 4 75% 9 of 12 Looker 75% 9 of 12 Toggl Track 75% 9 of 12 Amplitude 58% 7 of 12 Domo 58% 7 of 12 Qlik Sense 58% 7 of 12 Adobe Analytics 50% 6 of 12 Hotjar 50% 6 of 12 FullStory 42% 5 of 12 Crazy Egg 33% 4 of 12 Heap 33% 4 of 12 Hubstaff 33% 4 of 12 RescueTime 33% 4 of 12 TimeCamp 33% 4 of 12 Time Doctor 25% 3 of 12 Everhour 17% 2 of 12 Segment 17% 2 of 12 Sisense 17% 2 of 12 Timely 17% 2 of 12 Contentsquare 8% 1 of 12 Harvest 8% 1 of 12 Paymo 8% 1 of 12 Pendo 8% 1 of 12 Fathom 0% 0 of 12What to do with this
- Measure every engine, not one. The spread between the most and least generous engine in this study was 17.7 points. A check against a single engine tells you about that engine.
- Check the role, not just the mention. 51.8% of mentions here put the brand in the alternative slot. Moving from alternative to first recommendation is a positioning problem, not a visibility one.
- Follow the citations, not the keyword list. The engines quoted a wide spread of sources here; learn.g2.com was the single most cited. Earning a place on the pages an engine already reads is what changes an answer.
- Zero is a starting point, not a verdict. 1 of 30 brands scored zero here. The first mention on any engine is the milestone that proves the sources are being read.
- Do not budget for reputation defence you do not need. 81.7% of mentions here were positive. Spend on being present, not on being liked.
What this does not show
- Each brand was measured on the questions our generator writes for that brand, not on one shared question set, so this is an average of per-brand measurements and not a like-for-like ranking.
- Per-brand splits between engines rest on the few questions asked about that brand, not on the full sample of 30.
- These are measurements taken on 2026-09-12. AI answers change; a score here is a reading on that date, not a permanent property of the brand.
Reproduce this
The raw answers are stored per brand, per engine, per question. The figures above come from:
select "brandName", "stratum", "visibility", "mentionCount" from "StudyResult" where "studyId" = 'cmtyqpr3o0003ji04bhwqpyua' order by "visibility" desc
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
Want the same measurement for your own brand? The free check runs this exact pipeline.
Originally published on GeoBuddy Blog.
Is your brand visible in AI answers? ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini & Perplexity are shaping how people discover products. Check your brand’s AI visibility for free — 3 free checks, no signup required.