Home / Features / Competitor tracking
Knowing you are absent is incomplete information. Knowing who holds the place, on which questions and for how long, is what lets you decide what to do. Competitor tracking measures your share of voice in AI answers, next to your competitors'.
See my ranking for free 14 days, no card requiredOn Google, a hundred links can coexist. A user scrolling down the page eventually finds you. In an AI answer there is no second page: three or four brands are named, one is remembered, and the rest do not exist for that user.
That is what makes competitive reading essential here, far more than in classic search. Your visibility is not simply low or high, it is taken. By identifiable players, on specific questions, for reasons that can be documented.
Competitor tracking answers three questions in order: who is cited, on what, and whether the gap is closing or widening.
The ranking gives the wide view, the competitor profile explains one player, the per-question view shows where to act.
Where do you stand?
Every brand cited on your questions, ranked by share of voice, with your own position highlighted and the seven-day movement.
A ten-second read that tells you whether you are gaining, holding, and who is moving around you.
Why that one?
The detail for each player: which questions they appear on, how often, and how their presence compares with yours question by question.
This is what turns a name in a ranking into an identified target.
Where do you start?
The same market read the other way round: for each tracked question, who is cited and in what order.
This is the view that surfaces the questions where you sit just behind the first brand cited, the ones that cost the least effort for a real gain.
Your share of voice shows how often your brand is named, measured against every brand cited on your questions. It is your real weight in the conversation, not your claimed awareness.
The ranking also shows how many players are cited outside the top, and the share they represent together. That figure is often the most instructive on the page. A market where forty other players share half the citations is not a locked market: it is a fragmented one, where nobody dominates and where a well-positioned brand can climb fast.
Conversely, a market where three players concentrate most citations calls for a different strategy, slower, aimed at the sources AI platforms treat as authoritative rather than at content volume.
When an AI cites you, it almost always names other brands in the same answer. That group is not random: it reflects the associations AI platforms have built from their sources. It is your perceived category as it actually exists in answers, not as you claim it.
The information is directly actionable. If you consistently appear next to players smaller than you, your positioning is being misread. If you are absent from the answers featuring the leaders of your market, you know exactly which lists, comparisons and discussions to target in order to get in.
You can filter the ranking by platform, and the gap is often surprising. AI platforms do not rely on the same sources: a brand heavily present in discussions and forums will surface more on some, a brand backed by specialist publications on others.
A competitor far ahead of you on one platform can sit behind you on another. This reading avoids two costly mistakes: concluding from a single platform that you are behind everywhere, and spreading effort evenly when the problem sits on one surface only.
The logic is always the same: AI platforms do not pick brands at random, they draw on passages where several brands appear together. Being cited alongside the players who dominate your market, in reliable sources, strengthens the association between them and you.
In practice that means targeting the lists, comparisons and discussions where those brands already appear, rather than producing more content on your own site. It is the earned media principle applied to AI citations.
The ranking tells you who holds the place. These modules tell you how it was taken.
You add the competitors you already know when creating the project, and the tool additionally records every brand cited on your questions, including ones you had not thought of. That is often the most useful part: AI platforms surface players who appear in no classic competitive watch.
It measures how often your brand is cited against all citations recorded on your tracked questions, across every brand. It reads as a conversational market share. A low figure in a highly fragmented market does not mean the same thing as the same figure in a concentrated one, which is why the number of players cited is shown next to it.
Because it is relative. If a competitor gains visibility, your share drops mechanically even though your number of citations is unchanged. That is exactly the point of the metric: it measures your position in a moving market, not your isolated activity. The seven-day movement column lets you tell the two apart.
Yes, and that is what makes the comparison valid. Competing brands are recorded in the same answers, during the same scans, on the same questions. There is no estimate and no external source: the same AI answers, read for every brand present.
Yes. Tracking covers brand mentions inside answers, not the existence of a domain. That matters in sectors where individuals, firms or independents are cited on the same footing as companies.
With the ones where the gap is smallest, not the ones that feel most important. The per-question view surfaces cases where you are cited just after the first player: those are the situations where one well-placed third-party piece can flip the order. Questions where you are entirely absent require far longer work.
Create your project, run a first scan, and get the full ranking of brands cited on your questions.
See my ranking for free 14 days, no card required, no commitmentPRODUCTS
RESOURCES
COMPANY
