Fertility Clinics: AI Visibility Market Discovery Index

Tracking how AI platforms recommend fertility clinics. This public AI Visibility Market Discovery Index is updated monthly since July 2026.

Mark Huntley, J.D.
By Mark Huntley, J.D.Growth Strategist & AI Discovery Analyst
8 minutes read

Benchmark Summary

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who leads the Fertility Clinics benchmark in October 2026, and by how much?
  • Which brands moved most this month, and did that change their overall standing?

CCRM Fertility led the Fertility Clinics benchmark in October 2026 with valid recommendation coverage of 36.6%, up from 33.9% in July 2026. The gap to the next brand, RMA Network, was a 4.0-point leader margin, with RMA Network at 32.6%, up from 14.1% in July 2026.

The category recorded mixed movement this month. The largest coverage increase was RMA Network, which rose to 32.6% in October 2026 from 19.9% in September 2026. The largest coverage decline was Kindbody, which fell to 5.0% in October 2026 from 7.5% in September 2026.

Across the full July-to-October series, three brands were classified as significant risers: NYU Langone Fertility, Pacific Fertility Center, and RMA Network. Kindbody was the only significant decliner, down 9.5 points since July. RMA Network rose in each of the three months since July 2026, from 14.1% to 32.6%. Pacific Fertility Center also rose in each of the three months since July 2026, from 5.0% to 10.4%. NYU Langone Fertility rose in each of the two months since August 2026, from 11.8% to 23.7%. The benchmark began with 625 prompt-surface observations in October 2026 and produced 279 qualified observations after qualification.

AI recommendation trend

valid recommendation coverage, Jul 2026 to Oct 2026

0%10%20%30%40%Jul 2026Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
  • CCRM Fertility36.6%
  • RMA Network32.6%
  • NYU Langone Fertility23.7%
  • Shady Grove Fertility22.6%
  • Pacific Fertility Center10.4%
  • Spring Fertility8.2%
  • Kindbody5.0%
  • Boston IVF4.7%
  • Illume Fertility0.7%
  • US Fertility0.0%

Current Benchmark at a Glance

Measure

Jul 2026

Oct 2026

Movement

Qualified benchmark observations

242

279

Up 37

Tracked brands

10

10

No change

Qualified surface breadth

6

6

No change

Recommendation-shaped answer share

31.8%

35.8%

Up 4.0 points

Valid recommendation shortlist share

40.9%

57.7%

Up 16.8 points

Leader by valid recommendation coverage

CCRM Fertility (33.9%)

CCRM Fertility (36.6%)

No change

Qualified surface breadth counts the number of canonical AI/search surface families with at least one qualified observation. The six families are ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. Both months recorded breadth of six. Both August 2026 and September 2026 also recorded breadth of six.

Want the full Authority Index

The paid deep-dive adds competitor threat profiles, the gap matrix, citation failure map, platform-by-platform recovery roadmap, and client-specific economic modeling.

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

Research Scope and Qualification

Questions This Section Answers

  • How many prompt-surface observations were collected, and how many qualified for the public benchmark?
  • Why is the public benchmark narrower than the raw collection universe?

The public benchmark is narrower than the raw collection universe by design. The table below shows how the raw prompt-surface observations were qualified.

Research stage

Jul 2026

Oct 2026

What it represents

Source prompt-surface observations

367

625

Total prompts issued across AI/search surfaces

Unique questions

302

479

Distinct questions after de-duplication

Brand / competitor mentions

367

547

Prompts that mention a brand or competitor

Relevant observations

318

476

Observations relevant to the category

Irrelevant observations

49

71

Observations not relevant to the category

Qualified benchmark observations

242

279

Public denominator for brand-level metrics

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

Current Brand Standings

Questions This Section Answers

  • Which fertility clinics lead the October 2026 standings by valid recommendation coverage?
  • How does recommendation coverage differ from presence, top-three, and rank-one rates in the standings?

This table is the primary current-month benchmark view, sorted by valid recommendation coverage.

Brand

Presence rate

Valid recommendation coverage

Top-three rate

Rank-one rate

Net sentiment

CCRM Fertility

53.8%

36.6%

23.3%

10.8%

0.68

RMA Network

43.4%

32.6%

17.9%

5.0%

0.76

NYU Langone Fertility

26.9%

23.7%

22.2%

5.4%

0.91

Shady Grove Fertility

37.3%

22.6%

15.4%

2.1%

0.62

Pacific Fertility Center

20.4%

10.4%

8.2%

2.9%

0.49

Spring Fertility

12.2%

8.2%

5.0%

2.5%

0.68

Kindbody

11.8%

5.0%

1.8%

0.0%

0.45

Boston IVF

6.8%

4.7%

1.8%

0.7%

0.68

Illume Fertility

9.3%

0.7%

0.4%

0.4%

0.08

US Fertility

1.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.00

How to Read the Standings

  • Presence rate: percentage of qualified observations where the brand is mentioned at all, regardless of context.
  • Valid recommendation coverage: percentage of qualified observations where the brand receives a valid recommendation.
  • Top-three rate: percentage of qualified observations where the brand appears in the top three recommended positions.
  • Rank-one rate: percentage of qualified observations where the brand is the first recommendation.
  • Net sentiment: share of positive mentions minus negative mentions, as a score from -1 to 1.

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

Recommendation Coverage Movement

Questions This Section Answers

Want the full Authority Index

The paid deep-dive adds competitor threat profiles, the gap matrix, citation failure map, platform-by-platform recovery roadmap, and client-specific economic modeling.

  • Which brands rose or fell significantly in recommendation coverage since July 2026?
  • Where did the largest single-month coverage swings occur?

Brand

Jul 2026

Oct 2026

Movement since baseline

Boston IVF

3.3%

4.7%

Up 1.4 points

CCRM Fertility

33.9%

36.6%

Up 2.7 points

Illume Fertility

0.0%

0.7%

Up 0.7 points

Kindbody

14.5%

5.0%

Down 9.5 points

NYU Langone Fertility

13.2%

23.7%

Up 10.5 points

Pacific Fertility Center

5.0%

10.4%

Up 5.4 points

RMA Network

14.1%

32.6%

Up 18.5 points

Shady Grove Fertility

26.0%

22.6%

Down 3.4 points

Spring Fertility

7.4%

8.2%

Up 0.8 points

US Fertility

0.4%

0.0%

Down 0.4 points

In the movement from September to October 2026, RMA Network posted the largest single-month rise at 12.7 points, from 19.9% to 32.6%, and has now risen in three consecutive months. NYU Langone Fertility also posted a significant single-month rise at 10.7 points, from 13.0% to 23.7%. CCRM Fertility rose 7.1 points from September to October 2026, though that move stayed within normal month-to-month variation.

Largest Increase: RMA Network

RMA Network was classified as a significant riser, with valid recommendation coverage up 18.5 percentage points since July. RMA Network rose in each of the three months since July 2026. Its presence rate rose to 43.4% in October 2026 from 24.8% in July 2026, and its top-three rate rose to 17.9% from 5.4%. The rise spans presence, top-three placement, and rank-one, not coverage alone.

Largest Decline: Kindbody

Kindbody was the only brand classified as a significant decliner, with valid recommendation coverage down 9.5 percentage points since July. Kindbody declined in each of the three months since July 2026. Its presence rate fell to 11.8% in October 2026 from 22.7% in July 2026, and its top-three rate fell to 1.8% from 7.8%. The decline spans both presence and placement, not sentiment alone.

Category Leader: CCRM Fertility

CCRM Fertility remained the category leader with 36.6% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, up from 33.9% in July 2026. CCRM Fertility held the top rank-one rate at 10.8% in October 2026, down from 19.0% in July 2026, a decline of 8.2 points. A stable coverage lead still came with a weakening first-choice position.

Want the full Authority Index

The paid deep-dive adds competitor threat profiles, the gap matrix, citation failure map, platform-by-platform recovery roadmap, and client-specific economic modeling.

Watch Item: Illume Fertility

Illume Fertility rose in each of the three months since July 2026, from 0.0% to 0.7%, a cumulative move still within normal month-to-month variation. This is not yet a trend.

Stable Brands

Boston IVF, CCRM Fertility, Shady Grove Fertility, Spring Fertility, and US Fertility were classified as stable. Spring Fertility and Shady Grove Fertility each rose in the two months since August 2026.

Recommendation Placement Snapshot

Questions This Section Answers

  • How does first-position prominence compare with top-three placement among the leading clinics?
  • Can two clinics with similar coverage have very different rank-one rates?

Coverage alone does not show how prominently a brand is recommended. The following table shows placement for the leading brands in October 2026.

Brand

Oct 2026 top-three rate

Oct 2026 rank-one rate

Jul 2026 top-three rate

Jul 2026 rank-one rate

CCRM Fertility

23.3%

10.8%

24.8%

19.0%

RMA Network

17.9%

5.0%

5.4%

0.4%

NYU Langone Fertility

22.2%

5.4%

9.5%

2.5%

Close coverage can still hide different first-position rates. NYU Langone Fertility converted 5.4% of all observations into rank-one recommendations in October 2026, while RMA Network converted 5.0% despite a meaningfully lower top-three rate. Coverage and first-position prominence do not move together.

Buyer-Intent Distribution

In October 2026, all qualified observations fell into the brand recommendation class.

Buyer-intent class

Jul 2026

Oct 2026

Brand Recommendation

242

279

Pricing & Value

0

0

Multi-Brand Comparison

0

0

Total qualified observations

242

279

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

Historical Measurement Record

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

Measurement

Qualified observations

Coverage leader

Leader coverage

Largest coverage movement

Jul 2026

242

CCRM Fertility

33.9%

RMA Network (Up 18.5 points)

Aug 2026

305

CCRM Fertility

31.5%

Shady Grove Fertility (Down 4.7 points)

Sep 2026

332

CCRM Fertility

29.5%

Kindbody (Down 7.0 points)

Oct 2026

279

CCRM Fertility

36.6%

RMA Network (Up 12.7 points)

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.

Want the full Authority Index

The paid deep-dive adds competitor threat profiles, the gap matrix, citation failure map, platform-by-platform recovery roadmap, and client-specific economic modeling.

Scope Boundaries

This public benchmark does not measure:

  • Market share or attributable sales of any fertility clinic brand
  • Every possible AI response for every possible query
  • Organic-search ranking performance
  • Social media mention volume
  • Private or sponsored channel performance
  • Causality from a metric movement alone

Top 10 Cited Domains

Questions This Section Answers

  • Which domains received the most AI citations in October 2026?
  • How concentrated are AI citations across domains, and which clinics' own sites appear among the top cited sources?

Across all AI platform responses in October 2026, the benchmark observed 4,848 citations spanning 1,258 unique domains. The 10 most cited domains are shown below.

Rank

Domain

Citations

Share

Platforms citing

1

google.com

504

10.4%

AI Mode, AI Overviews

2

ccrmivf.com

227

4.7%

ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

3

youtube.com

164

3.4%

AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

4

shadygrovefertility.com

157

3.2%

ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

5

rmanetwork.com

125

2.6%

ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

6

reddit.com

87

1.8%

ChatGPT, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

7

cnyfertility.com

78

1.6%

Copilot, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

8

springfertility.com

76

1.6%

ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

9

pfcla.com

71

1.5%

Copilot, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

10

illumefertility.com

56

1.2%

ChatGPT, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity

Citations are broadly distributed: the top 10 domains account for 30.9% of all citations. Six of the ten most cited domains are owned by tracked brands: ccrmivf.com, shadygrovefertility.com, rmanetwork.com, springfertility.com, pfcla.com (Pacific Fertility Center), and illumefertility.com. Official brand sites dominate the list, with google.com, YouTube, Reddit, and cnyfertility.com as the notable exceptions.

About This Benchmark

The LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery Index tracks how AI and search surfaces mention, recommend, and characterize brands across defined verticals. Vertical benchmarks measure tracked brands across six canonical AI/search surface families using a consistent, repeatable methodology. New measurements are published on the same benchmark URL, enabling month-over-month comparison.

Research reference links:

Get a Company-Level Authority Index

The public industry benchmark shows category-level standings. A company-level Authority Index can go deeper, with brand-specific analysis across AI surfaces, placement, sentiment, and intent classes.

Get my free AI Company Index

Want the full Authority Index

The paid deep-dive adds competitor threat profiles, the gap matrix, citation failure map, platform-by-platform recovery roadmap, and client-specific economic modeling.