AI Chatbots: AI Visibility Market Discovery Index

Benchmark Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Who leads the AI Chatbots benchmark in October 2026, and how wide is the gap to the next-ranked brand?
• How did the category's benchmark observations and recommendation-shaped answer share change between July and October 2026?

WATI leads the AI Chatbots benchmark with valid recommendation coverage of 27.9% of qualified observations in October 2026, ahead of Yellow.ai at 12.1% and Interakt at 5.8%. Valid recommendation coverage measures the share of qualified observations in which a brand appears in a clear recommendation shortlist. The gap between WATI and Yellow.ai, the next-ranked brand, is 15.8 points in October 2026, compared with a 15.1-point gap in July 2026. Across the series, the gap between WATI and Interakt widened from 16.9 points to 22.1 points.

October 2026 was a quiet month at the category level: no brand's valid recommendation coverage moved beyond normal month-to-month variation, and every tracked brand remained classified as stable. Relative to the July 2026 baseline, WATI recorded the largest cumulative increase in valid recommendation coverage, moving from 26.2% to 27.9%, a gain of 1.7 points, and has increased its coverage in each of the last two months. Interakt recorded the largest cumulative decline, moving from 9.3% to 5.8%, a loss of 3.5 points, and has declined in each of the last two months. These baseline-to-current patterns extend trends already visible earlier in the series rather than reversing them.

The October 2026 benchmark began with 427 prompt-surface observations and produced 190 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

Questions This Section Answers

• Why is the qualified benchmark universe smaller than the raw collection, and which stages explain the gap?
• What is the public denominator for brand-level AI chatbot metrics?

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 Visibility Market Discovery Methodology.

Current Brand Standings

Questions This Section Answers

• How do WATI, Yellow.ai, and Interakt differ across presence, valid recommendation coverage, and rank-one rate?
• Where does Geta.ai stand in the October 2026 AI Chatbots 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 Visibility Market Discovery Metric Definitions.

Geta.ai: Current Position

Geta.ai recorded 0.0% valid recommendation coverage, 0.0% presence rate, 0.0% top-three rate, 0.0% rank-one rate, and 0.00 net sentiment in October 2026, the only tracked brand with no qualified observations of any kind across the four-month series.

WATI records 27.9% valid recommendation coverage, while Geta.ai stands at 0.0%. The more important issue is what that gap means for Geta.ai's recommendation position: Geta.ai does not merely trail the category leader on placement or prominence, it has not yet registered a single qualified mention, recommendation, or sentiment-bearing observation in the benchmark's six tracked AI surface families across four consecutive months. Every other tracked brand, including the lowest-presence competitor Engati at 0.5%, has at least some measurable footprint; Geta.ai's complete absence from both presence and recommendation data is a distinct and unresolved condition that the source data cannot explain on its own.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Why has Geta.ai produced zero qualified observations across presence, recommendation, placement, and sentiment in every month of the series, while even the lowest-ranked competitors register measurable activity?

Recommendation Coverage Movement

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI chatbot brands recorded the largest coverage gain and decline since the July 2026 baseline?
• Why was October 2026 classified as a quiet month despite WATI's and Interakt's recent moves?

October 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 four-month series. WATI's prior-month move from 22.1% in September 2026 to 27.9% in October 2026, though positive, also sat within normal variation. WATI has now increased its coverage in each of the two months since September 2026. Interakt declined in each of the two months since August 2026, moving from 9.8% in August 2026 to 5.8% in October 2026. Haptik recorded coverage in July 2026 and August 2026 but has recorded 0.0% in each of the two months since September 2026. Geta.ai recorded 0.0% coverage in every month of the series.

Largest Increase: WATI

Since the July 2026 baseline, WATI recorded the largest increase in valid recommendation coverage among tracked brands, moving from 26.2% to 27.9%, a gain of 1.7 points. WATI has increased its coverage in each of the last two months, moving from 22.1% in September 2026 to 27.9% in October 2026, though that month-over-month move fell within normal variation. WATI's presence rate was 64.2% in October 2026, up from 61.8% in July 2026. Its rank-one rate moved from 13.3% in July 2026 to 15.3% in October 2026.

Largest Decline: Interakt

Since the July 2026 baseline, Interakt recorded the largest decline in valid recommendation coverage among tracked brands, moving from 9.3% to 5.8%, a loss of 3.5 points. Interakt has declined in each of the last two months, moving from 6.0% in September 2026 to 5.8% in October 2026, though that month-over-month move fell within normal variation. Interakt's presence rate was 17.9% in October 2026, down from 25.8% in July 2026.

Category Leader: WATI

WATI remains the category leader with 27.9% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, within a stable range across the series (26.2% in July 2026, 20.3% in August 2026, and 22.1% in September 2026). Its presence rate of 64.2% in October 2026 is the highest of the series. WATI's rank-one rate moved from 13.3% in July 2026 to 15.3% in October 2026. The gap between WATI and the next-ranked brand was 15.1 points in July 2026 and 15.8 points in October 2026.

Recommendation Placement Snapshot

Questions This Section Answers

• How did WATI, Yellow.ai, and Interakt differ in converting valid recommendation coverage into rank-one placements?
• Can similar valid recommendation coverage levels hide different first-position rates among AI chatbot brands?

Coverage alone does not show how prominently a brand is recommended. Among the leading brands, placement patterns varied in October 2026.

WATI, Yellow.ai, and Interakt each recorded different first-position rates in October 2026. WATI's 15.3% rank-one rate in October 2026 remained higher than the 2.6% rank-one rate recorded by Yellow.ai and the 1.1% rank-one rate recorded by Interakt. Similar coverage levels can still hide different first-position rates: WATI and Yellow.ai held the top two coverage positions, but WATI converted a substantially larger share of its recommendations into first-position placements.

Buyer-Intent Distribution

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent classes made up the qualified observations in the AI Chatbots benchmark?
• What buyer-intent categories are not yet measured in the current public series?

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

Questions This Section Answers

• How have qualified observations and the coverage leader changed across the July to October 2026 measurements?
• Which month recorded the largest coverage movement in the AI Chatbots benchmark series?

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

Evidence and Source Layer

Questions This Section Answers

• What evidence does each prompt-level observation retain, and what does source presence actually prove?
• Does a cited source automatically mean it caused an AI chatbot brand's recommendation?

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

Top 10 Cited Domains

Questions This Section Answers

• Which domains were cited most often across AI platform responses in October 2026, and how concentrated were those citations?
• Which tracked AI chatbot brands' own domains appeared in the top 10 cited sources?

Across all AI platform responses in October 2026, the benchmark observed 2,776 citations drawn from 1,035 unique domains.

Citations are broadly distributed: the top 10 domains together account for roughly 27% of all citations, leaving the remaining 73% spread across more than 1,000 other domains. Two tracked brands' own domains appear in the top 10: yellow.ai at rank 3 with 106 citations and wati.io at rank 5 with 68 citations. The remainder of the list mixes general-purpose platforms (youtube.com, google.com, reddit.com, linkedin.com, en.wikipedia.org), a specialist chatbot-industry publisher (respond.io), and a review-oriented site (g2.com). No single source type dominates the top of the list.

About This Benchmark

The LLM Authority Index AI Visibility 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 Visibility Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Visibility Market Discovery Metric Definitions
• AI Visibility Market Discovery Research Standards
• Modeled AI Visibility 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