One marketing need. Multiple leading AI platforms. One transparent consensus. How it works
AI MarketingConsensus Index

AI Consensus Fit Review

Ahrefs AI Citation Tool Fit Review for Competitor Source-Gap Analysis

Ahrefs is a qualified but contested fit for AI Citation Tools for Competitor Source-Gap Analysis.

Research: 2026-09-176 usable platform responsesRead the methodology ↗

Answer Capsule

Ahrefs is a qualified but contested fit for AI Citation Tools for Competitor Source-Gap Analysis. Three of six included platforms named Ahrefs during ranking discovery — Anthropic, DeepSeek, and OpenAI — giving it a 50% platform share and an average listed rank of 3.67. The strongest reason to consider it is Ahrefs Brand Radar's prompt-level citation reporting, competitor benchmarking, cited-page and cited-domain reports, and the "Others only" gap filter, all connected to Ahrefs' backlink and keyword data [1]. The main limitation is that Brand Radar is observational: it surfaces gaps but does not score which gaps are strategically meaningful, and platform coverage, pricing, and accuracy claims conflict across sources [4].

Research Snapshot

FieldFinding
Platform mentions in ranking stage3 of 6 included platforms (anthropic, deepseek, openai)
Share of included platform responses50%
Average listed rank3.67
Best listed rank3 (Anthropic)
Relevant product/model/planAhrefs Brand Radar — All Platforms Plan, publicly listed at $699/month, with AI visibility reports and custom-prompt tracking
Overall use-case fitMixed to good: strong for discovery and monitoring, weaker for strategic prioritization and closed-platform coverage
Research date2026-09-17

Fit ratings by platform were split: OpenAI rated Ahrefs a "good" fit, while Anthropic, DeepSeek, Grok, and Perplexity rated it "mixed" and Kimi rated it "uncertain." No platform rated it a poor fit, and no platform rated it the clear best option for this use case.

Why Ahrefs Qualified for This Study

Questions This Section Answers

  • Is Ahrefs a good choice for AI Citation Tools for Competitor Source-Gap Analysis?
  • How many AI platforms named Ahrefs in this study, and does that prove it works?

Ahrefs qualified because three of the six included platforms named it during ranking discovery, clearing the two-mention minimum. Anthropic ranked it third, DeepSeek fourth, and OpenAI fourth, producing an average listed rank of 3.67 and a best rank of 3.

Qualification is not endorsement. The ranking stage counts how often platforms surfaced Ahrefs as a candidate; it does not measure product performance. Every platform that named Ahrefs also attached caveats, and the three platforms that did not name it (Google, Grok, and Kimi in the ranking stage) still evaluated fit in the research stage — Grok and Kimi both returned "mixed" and "uncertain" verdicts respectively.

One identity caveat applies. The deterministic identity audit used an exact-name fallback and retained a reported domain that remains unverified, and official-site retrieval for ahrefs.com failed during the audit because the page exceeded the size limit (audit:official_fact_sources). No failed fetch was used as a verified domain key.

The Product, Model, Plan, or Service Most Relevant to AI Citation Tools for Competitor Source-Gap Analysis

Questions This Section Answers

  • Which Ahrefs product should a buyer evaluate for competitor source-gap analysis?
  • Does the Ahrefs Brand Radar All Platforms plan include prompt-level citation data for competitors?

The relevant product is Ahrefs Brand Radar, specifically the All Platforms plan publicly listed at $699/month with 2,500 custom-prompt checks per month [7]. Brand Radar is positioned as an AI-visibility tool that tracks brand and competitor mentions across AI platforms and surfaces the sources cited in AI answers [9].

For this use case, the relevant capabilities are:

  • Cited-page and cited-domain reports identifying which specific URLs AI models cite when mentioning a brand [11].
  • Competitor configuration allowing up to ten competitors to be tracked against the buyer's brand [13].
  • An "Others only" report for prompts where competitors appear but the selected brand does not [14].
  • Custom prompts tracked across supported assistants with selectable location and daily, weekly, or monthly refresh frequencies [15].
  • Found-but-not-cited reporting, which distinguishes pages retrieved from pages actually cited [17].

Kimi's research is the outlier here: it states that the "$699/month All Platforms Plan" and "AI citation-gap workflows" attributed to Brand Radar in the ranking stage were not verified in its search results and may be speculative or conflated with competitor pricing [18]. DeepSeek reached a similar conclusion, reporting that the checked Ahrefs pages did not confirm the $699 figure [19]. Buyers should treat the plan name and price as platform-reported until confirmed at checkout.

What the AI Platforms Agreed About

Questions This Section Answers

  • What do AI platforms agree Ahrefs Brand Radar does well for competitor source-gap analysis?
  • Is Ahrefs Brand Radar strong at identifying which sources competitors earn citations from?

Agreement was strong on four points, though not unanimous.

Brand Radar tracks citations at the page and domain level. Anthropic's research describes cited-domain and cited-page reports identifying which specific URLs AI models cite, plus found-but-not-cited mentions that reveal retrieval-versus-selection gaps [20]. OpenAI's research confirms Brand Radar reports AI mentions, citations, impressions, and AI share of voice, and distinguishes pages cited in an answer from pages merely retrieved [22]. Independent reviews describe the citation view as an underrated feature showing which URL the model pulled a mention from — whether the buyer's own site, a Reddit thread, a review roundup, or a competitor's blog [23].

Competitor benchmarking is built in. OpenAI reports that users can configure their brand and competitors, compare AI visibility, filter reports, and identify prompts where competitors appear [24]. Grok's research confirms share-of-voice benchmarking, cited domain and page reports, and filters for responses containing competitor citations but not the buyer's brand [26].

Integration with Ahrefs SEO data is a differentiator. Anthropic notes that when a citation is identified, one click shows referring domain authority, backlink profile, and organic traffic, enabling prioritization of sources to pitch [28]. DeepSeek makes the same point about cross-referencing AI-cited sources with traditional link and traffic data [29].

The product is observational, not prescriptive. Anthropic states plainly that Brand Radar "tells you what is happening but does not engineer citation outcomes" [30]. OpenAI's research reaches the same conclusion: public documentation emphasizes measurement and discovery rather than ranking which gaps are strategically meaningful [24]. Grok's research notes no explicit strategic prioritization or remediation tasks beyond visibility metrics [27].

Agreement among platforms does not establish product quality. Most supporting citations are company-owned Ahrefs documentation, and the audit notes that company-owned citations materially outnumber independent ones.

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed or Were Uncertain

Questions This Section Answers

  • Does Ahrefs Brand Radar cover Claude, Grok, and Meta AI for competitor citation tracking?
  • How much does Ahrefs Brand Radar actually cost per month for full platform coverage?

Disagreement clustered around coverage, pricing, and accuracy.

Platform coverage conflicts. Anthropic's research reports that as of August 2026 Brand Radar covers ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Grok, with Claude available only for custom prompts through API-based tracking and Meta AI missing entirely [31]. Independent reviews cited by Anthropic describe the absence of Claude and Grok as a "massive blind spot" and hard to justify at Brand Radar's price point [33]. However, an April 2026 changelog cited in the same research shows Grok was added on April 24, 2026, for both organic and custom prompts [35], and a later review notes Grok data collection may be temporarily paused following policy changes [31]. OpenAI's research separately states Grok data collection is currently restricted for new data [36]. The current status of Grok and Claude coverage is unresolved and must be confirmed directly.

Pricing conflicts. OpenAI and Perplexity both report the All Platforms plan at $699/month with 2,500 custom-prompt checks [37]. Anthropic reports the same $699 figure but adds that two different price points appeared on Ahrefs' own pages in August 2026 — $199 versus $398/$699 bundled — and that realistic all-in cost is approximately $828/month when the required base plan starting at $129/month is included [39]. Perplexity notes public sources conflict on whether Brand Radar is standalone or requires a base subscription [41]. DeepSeek could not confirm any Brand Radar tier pricing from the pages it checked and rated pricing confidence "low" [43]. Kimi found no Brand Radar pricing at all [44].

Accuracy and sampling disputes. Ahrefs' own methodology blog emphasizes "transparent, modeled AI visibility" [45]. Independent reviews cited by Anthropic describe foundational accuracy gaps, incomplete sampling, and hesitation to present numbers as definitive [46]. Grok's research cites an independent audit reporting a 97.5% discrepancy between Brand Radar's keyword-database methodology and actual mentions [47]. No independent source in the reviewed materials validates Ahrefs' measurement accuracy, completeness, or customer business outcomes.

Prompt-index size conflicts. Ahrefs pages report different prompt-index sizes, including 405M+, 455M+, and older 350M+/300M+ descriptions. Anthropic cites a figure of over 200 million prompts [48], and Grok cites 457M+ prompts expanded via fan-out [49]. The applicable current count should be confirmed in the buyer's account.

Use-Case-Specific Features and Capabilities

Questions This Section Answers

  • Does Ahrefs Brand Radar provide prompt-level citation data and competitor source comparisons?
  • Can Ahrefs Brand Radar tell a buyer which citation gaps are strategically worth pursuing?

Assessment against the five stated criteria, based on platform-reported evidence:

CriterionAssessmentEvidence
Prompt-level citation dataAdvantageBrand Radar reports mentions, citations, impressions, and AI share of voice, and distinguishes cited pages from retrieved pages; custom prompts track across supported assistants with selectable location and refresh frequency
Competitor source comparisonsAdvantageBrand and competitor configuration, AI visibility comparison, report filters, and an "Others only" report for competitor-only prompts
Citation architecture mappingNeutralIdentifies top cited pages and domains and distinguishes cited from retrieved sources, but public materials do not establish a formal graph model of citation relationships or cross-platform influence
Source-gap identificationAdvantagePrompt-level gap reports, competitor benchmarking, cited-page reports, and fanout-query discovery provide direct inputs; automated gap clustering, deduplication, and a guaranteed recommendation to pursue a specific missing source are not verified
Strategic prioritization guidanceUnclearSearch-volume, relevance, visibility, and SEO context can help a team prioritize, but it is unclear whether Brand Radar itself scores gap importance by business value, conversion likelihood, source authority, or expected impact

Anthropic's research adds a cited-domain report filterable by source category — owned, competitor, media, community, review, marketplace, documentation — which supports source-architecture mapping [50]. It also notes that gap prioritization requires manual cross-referencing with keyword demand, funnel position, and revenue drivers [51].

Grok's research is more skeptical, stating that Brand Radar is "not designed for prompt-level tracking or citation source identification" and focuses on page-level mentions [53]. This directly conflicts with OpenAI's and Anthropic's findings and is unresolved in the supplied evidence.

Pricing, Fees, Contracts, and Ongoing Costs

Questions This Section Answers

  • How much does Ahrefs Brand Radar cost per month, and are there setup or cancellation fees?
  • What overage charges apply if a buyer exceeds the included custom-prompt checks?

Publicly listed pricing, as reported by platforms:

ItemListed priceSource
Brand Radar All Platforms$699/month, including 2,500 custom-prompt checks/month
Brand Radar single-platform index$199/month per index
Custom prompt packagesBasic $50/month for 2,500 checks; Growth $100/month for 7,000 checks; Scale $250/month for 25,000 checks
Custom-prompt overage$0.020, $0.015, and $0.010 per check for Basic, Growth, and Scale
Base Ahrefs planFrom $129/month (Lite)
Estimated all-in full coverageApproximately $828/month
Additional user seats$40/month (Lite), $60 (Standard), $80 (Advanced), $100 (Enterprise)

A custom-prompt check is defined as one prompt × one LLM × one location, so heavy multi-platform tracking consumes the 2,500-check allowance quickly [54].

Contract and cancellation terms, as reported: subscriptions can be cancelled from Account Settings and remain usable through the paid period; Ahrefs generally does not issue refunds, though monthly refunds may be requested if the service has not been used, subject to Ahrefs' discretion. Perplexity reports Brand Radar is monthly-only except Enterprise, which can purchase annually [55]. Anthropic reports month-to-month billing for Lite through Advanced tiers, a mandatory annual commitment on Enterprise at $1,499/month, and up to a 17% discount for annual billing.

Pricing confidence is moderate at best. Anthropic rates it moderate, DeepSeek rates it low, and Kimi found no Brand Radar pricing at all. Beta-channel availability is described as free while in beta, but Ahrefs states beta indexes may become chargeable add-ons when they exit beta.

Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who gets the most value from Ahrefs Brand Radar for competitor source-gap analysis?
  • Is Ahrefs Brand Radar worth it for a brand already paying for Ahrefs SEO tools?

Ahrefs Brand Radar is best suited for:

  • Existing Ahrefs subscribers who want AI citation tracking without adding another vendor, since Brand Radar integrates with backlink, keyword, and site-explorer data [56].
  • In-house SEO teams at mid-market brands focused on Google AI Overviews and ChatGPT visibility gaps.
  • Teams benchmarking AI visibility and citation share against named competitors across major AI answer platforms.
  • Digital PR teams that want to cross-reference AI citations with YouTube and Reddit visibility, which Ahrefs added in early 2026 [58].
  • Buyers who need domain-level rather than prompt-level comparisons alongside traditional SEO metrics.

The common thread is that Brand Radar works best as an evidence and monitoring layer inside an existing SEO workflow, not as a standalone strategy system.

Probably Not Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who should not choose Ahrefs Brand Radar for competitor source-gap analysis?
  • Is Ahrefs Brand Radar a poor fit for agencies managing many client accounts?

Ahrefs Brand Radar is probably not the best fit for:

  • Buyers requiring guaranteed coverage of every generative-answer platform, especially login-only or closed environments.
  • Teams where Claude, Meta AI, or deep Grok tracking is core, given reported coverage gaps and Grok collection pauses [59].
  • Teams seeking fully automated prioritization of citation gaps by commercial value, causal influence, or expected revenue impact [61].
  • Marketing agencies on thin margins, since per-account pricing of roughly $828/month makes client delivery hard to scale [62].
  • Buyers needing prompt-level ROI or GA4 attribution, which Brand Radar does not provide.
  • Programs prioritizing citation engineering over monitoring, since Brand Radar is observational rather than prescriptive [61].

When Another Option May Be Better

Questions This Section Answers

  • What is a better alternative to Ahrefs Brand Radar for prompt-level citation extraction?
  • When should a buyer choose a specialist AI visibility tool instead of Ahrefs Brand Radar?

Platform research named several alternatives, each tied to a specific gap:

  • Prompt-level citation extraction with exact quote and source URL: CiteTrack, Citingly, or Zeo Radar. CiteTrack distinguishes cited, mentioned, and absent states, records position and winning URL, and converts non-winning prompts into investigations [63].
  • Automated competitor-gap briefs with AI-drafted content recommendations: Citingly, which detects competitor content gaps and generates content briefs per gap with topic, angle, and missing elements [64].
  • Citation context classification (recommended versus passing reference): Citare, which covers five AI engines and offers citation context classification [65].
  • Weighted influence scoring and strict/contested gap lists: Zeo Radar, which provides weighted 0–100 influence scores and per-engine citation probability with feature disclosure [66].
  • Tight budgets: Citation Radar offers a free tier at $0 with one website, five questions, and three platforms, plus paid tiers at $39/month and $99/month [67].
  • Comprehensive LLM coverage including Claude, Meta AI, and Grok: Profound, Peec.ai, or Cairrot, per Anthropic's research.
  • Lower-cost custom-prompt monitoring: Peec.ai at $95/month single seat, Otterly.ai at $29, or Cairrot at $300/month, versus Ahrefs' roughly $828/month baseline.

One caveat: Citare markets itself as "Brand Radar that Ahrefs doesn't have," which is competitor-sourced positioning and unverified independently [65].

Questions to Verify Before Buying

Questions This Section Answers

  • What should a buyer confirm with Ahrefs before signing a Brand Radar contract?
  • Which AI platforms, locations, and historical periods are included in the quoted Brand Radar plan?

Platform research converged on a verification checklist:

  1. Exact platform coverage. Which AI platforms, locations, languages, historical periods, and prompt volumes are included in the proposed order form? Is Claude available as a standard organic-index option or only for custom prompts, and what is its collection cadence versus ChatGPT and Perplexity ?
  2. Grok status. Is Grok data collection currently active or paused as of the purchase date ?
  3. Actual bundled price at checkout. Two different figures appeared on Ahrefs' own pages in August 2026; confirm which applies to the buyer's region and billing cycle.
  4. Prompt-check limits and overage rates. Default is 2,500 checks/month; tracking ten or more custom prompts across seven or more engines daily will exceed it.
  5. Sampling methodology. How often are organic prompts re-executed, are historical snapshots weighted equally, and what is the estimated coverage rate of the prompt universe ?
  6. Citation counting rules. How are duplicate citations, syndicated pages, redirects, and multiple citations from the same domain counted ?
  7. Export capability. Can the system export prompt-level competitor-only gaps with cited URL, domain, platform, date, location, and answer text at the required scale ?
  8. Prioritization workflow. How does Ahrefs recommend prioritizing gaps by business value, and what manual work is expected from the buyer ?
  9. Data retention on cancellation. What happens to historical data and reports if the buyer cancels or downgrades ?
  10. Overage controls. What alerts and spending caps are available for custom prompts and API usage ?
  11. Sample report. Can Ahrefs demonstrate a competitor source-gap report using the buyer's actual category, brands, and US locations before purchase ?
  12. Sentiment analysis. Is sentiment a core Brand Radar feature or a custom-request add-on ?

Final AI Consensus Verdict

Ahrefs is a qualified but contested fit for AI Citation Tools for Competitor Source-Gap Analysis. It cleared the study's inclusion threshold with three of six platforms naming it, an average listed rank of 3.67, and a best rank of 3. Fit ratings split five ways: one "good," four "mixed," and one "uncertain."

The case for Ahrefs rests on Brand Radar's prompt-level citation reporting, competitor benchmarking, cited-page and cited-domain reports, the "Others only" gap filter, and integration with Ahrefs' backlink and keyword data. The case against rests on four unresolved issues: coverage gaps for Claude, Meta AI, and intermittently Grok; no verified strategic prioritization of which gaps matter commercially; conflicting pricing across Ahrefs' own pages and independent reviews; and independent accuracy and sampling concerns that Ahrefs' own methodology materials do not resolve.

Treat Brand Radar as an evidence and monitoring layer that may require analyst judgment or complementary tooling. Buyers whose primary need is prompt-level citation extraction, automated gap briefs, or citation-engineering guidance should evaluate the specialist alternatives named in this review before committing to roughly $828/month in all-in costs.

How This Review Was Produced

This review was produced from a structured multi-platform research run dated 2026-09-17. Six platforms were included in the research stage: Anthropic, DeepSeek, Grok, Kimi, OpenAI, and Perplexity. Each platform independently evaluated Ahrefs against the stated use case, returned a fit rating, listed strengths and limitations, documented pricing and terms, and supplied citations.

Ranking-stage statistics counted only platforms that named Ahrefs during discovery. Fit ratings and use-case findings came from the separate research stage. All platform responses were treated as platform-reported evidence rather than independently verified fact.

The consensus index for this category is AI Citation Tools for Competitor Source-Gap Analysis, which aggregates the full set of provider reviews.

This review sits within the broader ai citation authority building directory.

Methodology Limitations

Several limitations apply to this review.

Platform-reported dates differ from the run date. DeepSeek's research is dated 2026-02-14, while the authoritative run research date is 2026-09-17. Platform-reported dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness. DeepSeek's findings may predate coverage and pricing changes.

Company-owned citations dominate. The audit counts 22 company-owned sources against 12 independent sources. Ahrefs' own documentation supplies most capability claims, and company claims should not be read as independently verified.

No independent validation of accuracy or outcomes. No independent source in the reviewed materials validates Ahrefs' measurement accuracy, completeness, or customer business outcomes.

URLs were not independently validated. The supplied URLs were collected from platform responses and were not independently validated by the writer stage.

Official-site retrieval failed. The audit's attempt to retrieve ahrefs.com failed because the page exceeded the size limit, so no official-page excerpt was available to corroborate or contradict platform claims (audit:official_fact_sources).

Identity normalization used a fallback. The deterministic identity audit used an exact-name fallback and retained a reported domain that remains unverified.

Conflicts were preserved, not resolved. Where platforms disagreed on pricing, coverage, or accuracy, this review describes the conflict and directs buyers to verify rather than picking a winner.

Model opinions without retrieved evidence are platform-reported. Claims attributed to a platform without a supporting citation are labeled as platform-reported or unverified.

From the index

Compare the adjacent findings before forming a view.

Sources

Company-Owned Sources

Independent Sources

  • Ahrefs Brand Radar Review (2026): Pricing Breakdown, Competitor Comparisons, and Features Review: https://connorkimball.com/blog/ahrefs-brand-radar-review-pricing-competitor-comparison/
  • Ahrefs Brand Radar Review 2026: Features, Pricing, and Who It's Really For: https://dageno.ai/blog/ahrefs-brand-radar-review
  • Ahrefs Brand Radar Review 2026: Is It Worth $828/Month?: https://nboundmarketing.com/research/ai-visibility/ahrefs-brand-radar/
  • Ahrefs adds Grok to Brand Radar and quadruples API limits in April update: https://ppc.land/ahrefs-adds-grok-to-brand-radar-and-quadruples-api-limits-in-april-update/
  • Brand Radar by Ahrefs: What It Tracks and How to Evaluate It: https://stridec.com/blog/brand-radar-ahrefs/
  • Ahrefs Brand Radar Review (2026): Pricing, Features, and the Real Cost of Full Coverage: https://www.aeolabs.ai/blog/ahrefs-brand-radar-review
  • Ahrefs Brand Radar Alternatives & Review: Is It Worth It? (2026: https://www.ewrdigital.com/blog/ahrefs-brand-radar-review-alternatives-pricing-comparison
  • Ahrefs Brand Radar Review 2026: Features, Pricing, Verdict: https://www.layer3labs.io/guides/ahrefs-brand-radar-review
  • Ahrefs Brand Radar review for agencies (2026): worth it for client AI visibility?: https://www.rankability.com/blog/ahrefs-brand-radar-review/
  • Ahrefs Brand Radar Review 2026: Is It Worth $828?: https://www.tryanalyze.ai/blog/ahrefs-brand-radar-review
  • Ahrefs Brand Radar Review (2026): Good for SEO Teams, Not Enough for AEO: https://www.tryprofound.com/blog/ahrefs-brand-radar-review
  • xSeek vs Ahrefs Brand Radar: AI Visibility Tracking Compared: https://www.xseek.io/blogs/articles/which-ahrefs-brand-radar-alternative-really-boosts-ai-search-visibility
  • Additional AI research evidence67 records
    1. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    2. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    3. AI research evidence record anthropic:1-1
    4. AI research evidence record anthropic:20-2
    5. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    6. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    7. AI research evidence record openai:c5
    8. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    9. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    10. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    11. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-5
    12. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-2
    13. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-1
    14. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    15. AI research evidence record openai:c7
    16. AI research evidence record openai:c8
    17. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    18. AI research evidence record kimi:citare-1
    19. AI research evidence record deepseek:c4
    20. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-2
    21. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-5
    22. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    23. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-6
    24. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    25. AI research evidence record openai:c6
    26. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    27. AI research evidence record grok:web:5
    28. AI research evidence record anthropic:1-1
    29. AI research evidence record deepseek:c2
    30. AI research evidence record anthropic:20-2
    31. AI research evidence record anthropic:32-3
    32. AI research evidence record anthropic:34-3
    33. AI research evidence record anthropic:36-1
    34. AI research evidence record anthropic:29-2
    35. AI research evidence record anthropic:30-1
    36. AI research evidence record openai:c8
    37. AI research evidence record openai:c5
    38. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    39. AI research evidence record anthropic:11-2
    40. AI research evidence record anthropic:14-18
    41. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    42. AI research evidence record perplexity:c6
    43. AI research evidence record deepseek:c4
    44. AI research evidence record kimi:citationradar-1
    45. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-1
    46. AI research evidence record anthropic:28-8
    47. AI research evidence record grok:web:1
    48. AI research evidence record anthropic:7-1
    49. AI research evidence record grok:web:4
    50. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-2
    51. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-1
    52. AI research evidence record anthropic:20-2
    53. AI research evidence record grok:web:4
    54. AI research evidence record anthropic:15-2
    55. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    56. AI research evidence record anthropic:1-1
    57. AI research evidence record deepseek:c2
    58. AI research evidence record anthropic:16-4
    59. AI research evidence record anthropic:32-3
    60. AI research evidence record anthropic:34-3
    61. AI research evidence record anthropic:20-2
    62. AI research evidence record anthropic:14-18
    63. AI research evidence record kimi:citetrack-1
    64. AI research evidence record kimi:citingly-1
    65. AI research evidence record kimi:citare-1
    66. AI research evidence record kimi:zeoradar-1
    67. AI research evidence record kimi:citationradar-1

Verify this research

Review the study details behind this page or download the public machine-readable verification record.

Study date
September 17, 2026
Platforms analyzed
6
Source records
34
Ranking mentions
3 of 6
Platform share
50%
Final consensus rank
#3

Research trail and source mix

Configured platforms

openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, google

Source mix

12 independent · 22 company-owned

Evidence support

32 direct · 1 partial

Important limitation

Use the run research_date as the study date. Platform-reported dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

Source snapshot SHA-256 dd6f3dd303e131f1de583d2bbc37932a6d4158922cebb76f35d079f09646e8ee