There is no rank tracker for what a language model says about you

You can measure it as a rate, not as a position. Fix a set of prompts, run each one a set number of times in clean sessions, and record how often your business appears. That gives you something like "named in six of twenty runs of this prompt, on this date, in this model version" — which is a real measurement with a real sample size.

What you cannot do is turn that into a rank. There is no slot to occupy and no leaderboard to climb, and any report that presents one has invented it.

Because they are asking different questions. The tools use different prompt sets, different models, different regions, different run counts and different rules about what counts as a mention. Change any one of those and the number moves.

That is not a reason to give up on measurement. It is a reason to insist that whoever reports a number also publishes the prompt set, the run count, the model versions and the date. Without those four things a score is not comparable to anything, including its own previous value.

A mention is the model saying your name. A citation is the model attaching a link or a source reference to it. They have very different commercial value and should never be reported as one figure.

A mention with no link builds familiarity and nothing else. A citation puts a route on the page for someone who is already convinced enough to click. In engines that show sources, we track the two separately because the fixes are different: mentions come mostly from corroboration across the open web, citations come mostly from being reachable and quotable right now.

More than most reporting admits to. A single run tells you what happened once, and these systems can return a different set of brands on the next attempt with no change to anything you control.

We run every prompt in the panel multiple times, in fresh sessions with personalisation and memory disabled where the interface allows it, and we state the run count on the report. If a movement is smaller than the variation we see between runs of the same prompt, we say that rather than calling it progress.

Partly. Some assistants pass a referrer, so visits from them appear as referral traffic and can be segmented and measured like any other source. That part is real and worth setting up.

A lot of it is invisible. App-based assistants often strip the referrer, and Google reports AI experience impressions and clicks inside its overall Search performance data rather than as a separate breakdown. So referral traffic is a floor on the effect, never the whole of it, and we present it that way.

No. Nobody can, and a guarantee here is a straightforward reason to walk away. Responses vary by user, by phrasing, by region and by model version, and none of that is under any agency control.

What is under your control is being reachable, being described consistently, being corroborated by sources you do not own, and being accurate. Those are the inputs. The output is not something we sell.