AI Chatbots: AI Market Discovery Index

Benchmark Summary

WATI led the AI Chatbots benchmark in September 2026 with valid recommendation coverage of 22.1% of qualified observations, ahead of Yellow.ai at 6.9% and Interakt at 6.0%. Valid recommendation coverage measures the share of qualified observations in which a brand appears in a clear recommendation shortlist.

September 2026 was a quiet month: no brand's valid recommendation coverage moved beyond normal month-to-month variation, and the category leader position stayed with WATI. WATI's coverage moved from 20.3% in August 2026 to 22.1% in September 2026, a change within normal range. Interakt recorded the largest raw coverage decline this month, moving from 9.8% in August 2026 to 6.0% in September 2026, also within normal range.

Across the three-month series from July 2026 (baseline) to September 2026 (current), WATI has held the category lead in every measured month. WATI's valid recommendation coverage moved from 26.2% in July 2026 to 22.1% in September 2026, while Yellow.ai, the second-ranked brand in September, moved from 11.1% in July 2026 to 6.9% in September 2026. WATI's lead over the next-ranked brand was 15.1 points in July 2026 and 15.2 points in September 2026 — essentially unchanged across the series. WATI's presence rate moved from 61.8% in July 2026 to 64.5% in September 2026 over the same period, while its rank-one rate moved from 13.3% to 5.5%.

The benchmark began with 454 prompt-surface observations in September 2026 and produced 217 qualified observations after qualification.

Current Benchmark at a Glance

Qualified surface breadth counts the canonical AI/search surface families with at least one qualified observation: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. All six families were represented in each month of the series.

For the strategic interpretation of this benchmark, read CiteWorks Studio's analysis of How AI Search Is Recommending AI Chatbots

Research Scope and Qualification

The public benchmark is narrower than the raw collection universe by design.

Brand-level percentages use the qualified observations as the public denominator, not the raw collection. See the AI Market Discovery Methodology.

Current Brand Standings

How to Read the Standings

• Presence rate: share of qualified observations where the brand is mentioned at all.
• Valid recommendation coverage: share of qualified observations where the brand appears in a clear recommendation shortlist.
• Top-three rate: share of qualified observations where the brand appears in the top three recommended options.
• Rank-one rate: share of qualified observations where the brand is the first recommendation.
• Net sentiment: positive minus negative mention tone across observations, scaled.

For formulas and denominator rules, see AI Market Discovery Metric Definitions.

Geta.ai: Current Position

Geta.ai recorded a 0.0% presence rate, 0.0% valid recommendation coverage, 0.0% top-three rate, 0.0% rank-one rate, and 0.00 net sentiment in September 2026. The Recommendation Coverage Movement data shows this is not a new development: Geta.ai's valid recommendation coverage was also 0.0% in July 2026, producing "No change" across the full three-month series while every other tracked brand recorded at least some measurable coverage in at least one month.

WATI records 22.1% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, while Geta.ai stands at 0.0%. The more important issue is what that gap means for Geta.ai's recommendation position: this is not a case of visibility failing to convert into recommendation — Geta.ai's presence rate is also 0.0%, meaning the brand was not mentioned at all in any qualified observation this month. Even Gupshup, the smallest of the actively-tracked competitors on coverage, registers a 9.7% presence rate and 2.3% valid recommendation coverage, showing that measurable visibility is achievable for a smaller player in this category. Leaving this unaddressed means Geta.ai has no measured foothold from which recommendation coverage, placement, or sentiment could improve in the surfaces this benchmark tracks.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Why does Geta.ai record zero presence across all six qualified AI surface families in every month of the series, while a comparably sized competitor such as Gupshup registers 9.7% presence and 2.3% valid recommendation coverage over the same period?

Recommendation Coverage Movement

September 2026 was a quiet month: no brand's valid recommendation coverage moved beyond normal month-to-month variation, and every tracked brand's classification remained stable across the three-month series. WATI's prior-month move from 20.3% in August 2026 to 22.1% in September 2026, though positive, also sat within normal variation.

Several brands recorded their only coverage of the series in the first two months. Gupshup declined in each of the two months from July 2026 to September 2026, moving from 4.9% to 2.3%. Yellow.ai also declined in each month, moving from 11.1% to 6.9% over the same period, matching Gupshup's two-month downward pattern.

Category Leader: WATI

WATI remained the category leader with 22.1% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, up from 20.3% in August 2026 but down from a baseline of 26.2% in July 2026. Its presence rate of 64.5% in September 2026 was the highest of the series, up from 61.8% in July 2026. WATI's rank-one rate moved from 13.3% in July 2026 to 5.5% in September 2026 over the same period.

Recommendation Placement Snapshot

Coverage alone does not show how prominently a brand is recommended. Among the leading brands, placement patterns shifted over the series.

WATI, Interakt, and Yellow.ai each converted a smaller share of their top-three placements into first-position recommendations in September 2026 than in July 2026. WATI's rank-one rate of 5.5% in September 2026 remained higher than the 1.4% rank-one rate recorded by both Interakt and Yellow.ai.

Buyer-Intent Distribution

All qualified observations in each month of the series fell into the Brand Recommendation class, where the AI response recommends specific brands.

The current public series measures brand-recommendation discovery and does not yet contain qualified observations in the pricing and value or multi-brand comparison classes.

Historical Measurement Record

This is an evergreen benchmark URL. New measurements are added to the same report.

Evidence and Source Layer

The benchmark is built from prompt-level observations that retain the query, AI/search surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and, where exposed, citations or attributable evidence sources. Source presence is evidence about the information environment. It is not automatically proof that the source caused the recommendation.

Scope Boundaries

This public benchmark does not measure:

• Market share or sales attribution
• Every possible AI response or surface
• Organic-search ranking
• Social mention volume
• Private or sponsored channels
• Causality from a metric movement alone

About This Benchmark

The LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery Index tracks how AI search and chat surfaces discover and recommend brands within a category. It is a neutral, repeatable measurement of brand presence, recommendation coverage, placement, and sentiment across six canonical AI surface families.

• AI Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Market Discovery Metric Definitions
• AI Market Discovery Research Standards
• Modeled AI Authority Value

Get a Company-Level Authority Index

The public industry benchmark shows category-level standings. A company-level Authority Index can go deeper.

Get my free AI Company Index