Identity Theft Protection: AI Visibility Market Discovery Index

Benchmark Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Who leads the identity theft protection benchmark in October 2026, and how large is the gap to the next brand?
• Which identity theft protection brands declined beyond normal month-to-month variation since July 2026?

Aura remained the Identity Theft Protection benchmark leader in October 2026, holding 79.4% valid recommendation coverage, down from 83.7% in July 2026 but within normal month-to-month variation. The gap to the next brand, LifeLock, stood at 2.4 points, as LifeLock reached 77.0% coverage in October 2026, down from 82.2% in July 2026.

No brand posted a meaningful increase in valid recommendation coverage since baseline; PrivacyGuard's coverage was essentially flat, up 0.2 points to 4.0% in October 2026 from 3.8% in July 2026.

Three brands registered declines beyond normal variation. IdentityForce fell to 47.5% in October 2026 from 58.5% in July 2026, moving up 1.3 points from 46.2% in September 2026. IDShield declined to 29.3% in October 2026 from 43.7% in July 2026, including a drop from 37.8% in September 2026. Zander Insurance declined to 3.4% in October 2026 from 12.6% in July 2026, falling in each of the three months since baseline. IDX and LifeLock were watch items, each declining for three consecutive months with cumulative movement still within normal variation.

The October 2026 benchmark reflects 379 qualified observations, compared with 398 in July 2026.

Current Benchmark at a Glance

Qualified surface breadth counts the canonical AI/search surface families with at least one qualified observation. The six families tested are ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. All six families produced qualified observations in October 2026.

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

Current Brand Standings

Questions This Section Answers

• How do the ten tracked identity theft protection brands rank by valid recommendation coverage?
• Which brands separate from the rest on rank-one rate and top-three placement?

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

How to Read the Standings

Presence rate is the share of qualified observations where the brand appears in the AI answer at all. Valid recommendation coverage is the share of qualified observations where the brand appears in a clear recommendation context. Top-three rate is the share where the brand appears among the top three recommended options. Rank-one rate is the share where the brand is the single top recommendation. Net sentiment measures the balance of positive over negative brand mentions.

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

Recommendation Coverage Movement

Questions This Section Answers

• Which identity theft protection brand posted the largest coverage decline since baseline, and which was the only brand to increase?
• How did Aura's rank-one rate change even as it held category leadership?

Largest Decline: IDShield

IDShield posted the largest decline since baseline, with valid recommendation coverage down 14.4 points to 29.3% in October 2026 from 43.7% in July 2026. The immediate prior month also registered a decline beyond normal variation, from 37.8% in September 2026. Presence rate fell to 36.1% in October 2026 from 48.5% in July 2026. Valid recommendation count stood at 111 in October 2026 compared with 174 in July 2026.

Largest Increase: PrivacyGuard

PrivacyGuard recorded the only increase since baseline, with valid recommendation coverage up 0.2 points to 4.0% in October 2026 from 3.8% in July 2026. Presence rate rose to 5.3% in October 2026 from 4.3% in July 2026. Valid recommendation count stood at 15 in October 2026 compared with 15 in July 2026.

Category Leader: Aura

Aura remained the category leader at 79.4% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, down from 81.0% in September 2026. Its top-three rate of 79.2% and rank-one rate of 58.3% were both the highest in the benchmark. Aura's rank-one rate was down 10.0 points from 68.3% in July 2026.

Recommendation Placement Snapshot

Questions This Section Answers

• Why can near-identical coverage hide different first-position rates for identity theft protection brands?
• How do Aura and LifeLock compare on top-three versus rank-one placement in October 2026?

Coverage alone does not show how prominently a brand is recommended, and the top two brands illustrate the difference well.

Near-identical coverage can still hide very different first-position rates. Aura and LifeLock were separated by 2.4 points in coverage in October 2026, yet Aura was the top recommendation in 58.3% of qualified observations while LifeLock held the top spot in 18.7%, up 10.4 points from 8.3% in July 2026.

Buyer-Intent Distribution

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent class accounts for all qualified observations in the identity theft protection benchmark?
• Does the current public series contain qualified observations for pricing or multi-brand comparison questions?

All qualified observations in October 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation class, as they did in July 2026.

The current public series measures brand recommendation discovery only and does not yet contain qualified observations for pricing or comparison questions.

Historical Measurement Record

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

Top 10 Cited Domains

Questions This Section Answers

• Which domains were cited most across AI platform responses about identity theft protection in October 2026?
• What types of sources dominate the citation layer behind the identity theft protection recommendations?

Across all AI platform responses in October 2026, 6,236 citations were observed across 596 unique domains.

Citations were moderately concentrated, with the top 10 domains accounting for roughly 48% of all citations while 596 unique domains were cited overall. One tracked brand's own domain appeared in the top 10: aura.com ranked second with 444 citations, cited across all eight platform variants. Review and comparison sites dominated the list, with security.org, safehome.org, and allaboutcookies.org representing the largest share, followed by general-interest and news outlets such as YouTube, CNET, Forbes, and Reddit.

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, attributable sales, every possible AI response, organic-search ranking, social mention volume, or private or sponsored channels. A metric movement alone does not establish causality; the benchmark records the change rather than explaining why it occurred.

About This Benchmark

The LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery Index is a neutral, industry-level benchmark tracking how AI and search surfaces present brands across a vertical. It measures presence, recommendation coverage, placement, and sentiment as distinct signals and does not assign one brand credit for another's standing.

• 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