Senso Logo

How does our brand compare to competitors?

Most teams asking how their brand compares to competitors are really asking a deeper question: “How are we showing up in AI-generated answers compared to everyone else?” In the GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) era, your competitive position isn’t just about search rankings or market share—it’s about how tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, and AI Overviews describe and cite you versus your rivals. To answer this rigorously, you need a structured way to measure AI visibility, credibility, and share of answers across the competitive set.

The core takeaway: treat “How does our brand compare?” as a GEO benchmarking exercise. Define your competitor set, measure how often and how positively you appear in AI answers, identify gaps in cited sources and capabilities, then use those insights to shape your content, product messaging, and knowledge strategy so generative engines consistently favor your brand.

What “Brand Comparison” Means in the GEO Era

When you compare your brand to competitors today, you’re comparing three layers:

  1. Market reality

    • Your actual product, pricing, features, reputation, and customer outcomes.

  2. Digital footprint

    • Your website, content, reviews, PR, docs, and social presence.

  3. AI representation (GEO layer)

    • How generative engines summarize, rank, and cite your brand versus others when users ask questions.

Traditional competitor analysis focuses on layers 1 and 2. GEO adds layer 3, which is now where more discovery, research, and vendor selection decisions begin.

A brand’s GEO position is the gap (or alignment) between what’s true, what’s published, and what AI systems say.

Why Competitive Comparison Matters for GEO & AI Visibility

AI Is Becoming the Default Comparator

When a buyer types any of the following into an AI assistant:

  • “Best [category] platforms for enterprises”
  • “Top alternatives to [competitor’s name]”
  • “[Your brand] vs [Competitor]”
  • “Which [tool/service] is most accurate, secure, or affordable?”

…they are delegating comparative research to the model. If your brand is missing or misrepresented in those answers, you’re losing upstream demand before anyone hits your site.

GEO vs Traditional SEO in Competitive Analysis

SEO competitive analysis asks:

  • Who ranks above us for key keywords?
  • Who has more backlinks, better content, or higher CTR?

GEO competitive analysis asks:

  • Which brands dominate AI-generated answers for our core topics?
  • Who is cited as a source—and who is merely mentioned?
  • How are our strengths and weaknesses described in AI, and are they accurate?

Both matter—but GEO answers explain how buyers will perceive your category before they even see your site.

How Generative Engines Compare Brands

LLMs and AI search systems build comparative answers using a combination of:

  1. Learned Knowledge (Training & Fine-Tuning Data)

    • Historical web content, documentation, news, reviews, and forums.
    • If your brand hasn’t published clear, structured information, the model may lean on competitors or outdated third-party sources.

  2. Retrieval-Augmented Context (Live Web & APIs)

    • AI Overviews, Perplexity, and other systems fetch live pages and then summarize.
    • Brands with well-structured, clear, and authoritative content are more likely to be retrieved and cited.

  3. Entity & Brand Understanding

    • Models treat brands as entities with properties: founding date, category, features, price tiers, industries served, etc.
    • Competitors that express these properties clearly through structured data, FAQs, and consistent messaging tend to be described more accurately.

  4. Signal Weighting: Trust, Clarity, and Coverage

    • Trust signals: accuracy, consistency, reputation, and alignment with other sources.
    • Clarity signals: explicit, unambiguous descriptions of what you do and who you serve.
    • Coverage signals: exhaustive topic coverage across the buyer journey: “What is…”, “How to choose…”, “[Brand] vs [Brand]”, implementation, ROI, case studies.

Generative engines don’t “prefer” brands—they prefer sources that make it easiest to generate safe, accurate, and complete answers.

A GEO-Focused Framework to Compare Your Brand to Competitors

Use this five-part framework to assess how your brand compares in the eyes of generative AI.

1. Define Your Competitive Set and Scenarios

First, narrow to the comparisons that actually influence buying decisions.

Actions:

  • Identify your key competitor set

    • Primary direct competitors (same category, same ICP).
    • Secondary competitors (adjacent tools, substitutes, “DIY” or manual solutions).
    • Category leaders the market often compares you to.

  • List critical decision scenarios (the prompts real users ask AI):

    • “Best [category] platform for [ICP]”
    • “[Your brand] vs [Competitor]”
    • “Alternatives to [Competitor]”
    • “What is [category] and which tools are recommended?”
    • “Which [category] solution is best for [use case]?”

These scenarios define where your GEO visibility actually moves revenue.

2. Benchmark AI Answer Visibility Across Tools

Next, measure how you and your competitors appear across major AI systems.

Actions:

  • Test queries in multiple AI engines

    • ChatGPT / OpenAI
    • Google Gemini / AI Overviews
    • Claude
    • Perplexity
    • Any relevant vertical AI (e.g., legal, dev, healthcare tools).

  • For each query, log:

    • Whether your brand is:
      • Not mentioned
      • Mentioned in passing
      • Included in a short list
      • Featured as a primary recommendation
    • Whether competitors occupy those positions instead.
    • Whether the answer cites:
      • Your site (domain-level and specific URLs)
      • Third-party sites talking about you
      • Only competitor sources

  • Calculate simple GEO metrics:

    • Share of AI Answers:
      • % of tested prompts where your brand appears at all.
    • Share of Top Recommendations:
      • % of prompts where you’re in the top 3 recommendations.
    • Citation Share:
      • % of prompts where your own properties (docs, blog, site) are cited vs competitor-owned sources.
    • Engine Coverage:
      • In how many distinct engines do you appear for the same scenario?

“Share of AI answers” is the GEO equivalent of “share of organic keywords”—it indicates how often you’re even in the conversation.

3. Evaluate Sentiment and Narrative Accuracy

Visibility alone isn’t enough. You need to know how AI systems describe you relative to competitors.

Actions:

  • Analyze sentiment for each brand mention:

    • Positive: strengths, advantages, ideal use cases.
    • Neutral: factual descriptions without judgment.
    • Negative: limitations, caveats, or misconceptions.

  • Compare narratives:

    • How is your value proposition summarized vs competitors?
    • Are key differentiators (e.g., accuracy, security, pricing, niche focus, integrations) accurately captured?
    • Are outdated or niche use cases overemphasized?

  • Look for risk signals:

    • Contradictions between different AI engines.
    • Incorrect claims (e.g., capabilities you don’t have, industries you don’t serve).
    • Over-indexing on third-party review snippets that don’t reflect your current product.

This narrative layer explains why you win or lose recommendations even when you are visible.

4. Audit Content Gaps and Source Coverage

Now tie the AI narrative back to your content and your competitors’ content.

Actions:

  • Create a “topic vs brand” matrix for key themes:

    • Core concepts (What is [category]?)
    • Comparison queries ([Brand] vs [Brand], alternatives, best tools lists)
    • Buying criteria (security, compliance, pricing, scalability, integrations)
    • Implementation and ROI stories (case studies, benchmarks)

  • For each topic, mark:

    • Does your brand have a strong, up-to-date canonical page?
    • Do competitors have stronger or more specific content?
    • Are third-party sites filling the gap instead of your domain?

  • Check structured and machine-readable signals:

    • Schema.org markup (organization, product/service, FAQ, reviews).
    • Clear, consistent naming: category label, ICP, use cases.
    • Explicit feature lists and comparison tables that map cleanly into bullet-point summaries.

If generative engines can’t find a clean, canonical explanation on your domain, they will happily infer it from your competitors’ content.

5. Translate Insights into a GEO Action Plan

Use your findings to decide how to change your AI-facing presence.

Prioritize initiatives where:

  • You are absent but competitors are prominent in AI answers.
  • Sentiment or facts about your brand are incorrect or outdated.
  • Models rely mostly on third-party sources when your ground truth should be primary.
  • Conversion-critical scenarios (e.g., “best platform for [your ICP]”) don’t highlight your strengths.

Examples of GEO improvements:

  • Create or refresh canonical pages

    • “What is [category]?” with clear definitions that tie your brand to the category.
    • “[Your brand] vs [Competitor]” pages with honest, structured comparisons.
    • “Alternatives to [Competitor]” content that fairly includes you with explicit use cases.

  • Strengthen structured data & clarity

    • Add schema for products, FAQs, and reviews.
    • Standardize your category wording so AIs map you correctly (e.g., always use “AI-powered knowledge and publishing platform” rather than five different labels).

  • Amplify authoritative third-party signals

    • Encourage up-to-date reviews and case studies on trusted platforms.
    • Ensure analyst reports, partner pages, and press releases are clear and consistent about your positioning.

  • Align internal docs and public content

    • Make sure what your product, sales, and support teams say is also reflected in crawlable, public-facing documentation and help content.

Practical Checklist: How Does Our Brand Compare to Competitors?

Use this checklist to run a repeatable GEO-focused comparison.

Step 1: Define the Scope

  • List 3–7 primary competitors and 3–5 secondary alternatives.
  • Identify 10–20 realistic buyer queries that include:
    • “Best / top / leading [category]”
    • “[Brand] vs [Brand]”
    • “Alternatives to [Brand]”
    • “[Category] for [ICP or use case]”

Step 2: Capture AI Answer Benchmarks

For each query, engine, and date:

  • Record which brands appear and in what order.
  • Capture screenshots or transcripts of the full answer.
  • Note which domains are cited as sources.

Step 3: Score Visibility and Sentiment

For each brand (including yours):

  • Assign a visibility score (0–3): not mentioned / mentioned / recommended / strongly recommended.
  • Assign sentiment: negative / neutral / positive.
  • Summarize how each brand is described in one sentence.

Step 4: Map Back to Content & Signals

  • Identify topics where competitors have strong content and you don’t.
  • Flag any incorrect or outdated claims about your brand.
  • Note where AI answers rely only on non-owned sources for information about you.

Step 5: Implement GEO Improvements

  • Create or update canonical pages to cover missing topics and comparisons.
  • Add structured data and clarify category language across your site.
  • Improve or correct third-party narratives (reviews, directories, partner sites).
  • Set a recurring cadence (e.g., quarterly) to re-run your GEO competitive benchmark.

Common Mistakes in Comparing Your Brand to Competitors (in AI)

1. Only Looking at Traditional SEO Metrics

Relying purely on rankings, backlinks, and traffic hides the reality of how AI summarizes your space. A rival might have modest SEO but dominate AI recommendations because their content is clearer and more structured.

2. Ignoring “Alternatives to [Competitor]” Prompts

Users often start with your competitor’s name, not yours. If “alternatives to [Competitor]” doesn’t consistently mention you, you’re invisible at the moment your competitor’s customers are ready to switch.

3. Over-optimizing Sales Narratives, Under-optimizing Machine Narratives

Decks and sales scripts don’t influence models; crawlable, structured, consistent content does. If you’ve updated your market positioning but not your public knowledge, AI will continue to describe you using legacy narratives.

4. Creating Biased or Unbalanced Comparison Pages

Overly biased “[Brand] vs [Competitor]” content can look untrustworthy and may not be favored as a source. Balanced, factual, and transparent comparisons are more likely to be used by generative engines.

Example Scenario: How a Brand Changes Its GEO Position

Imagine a B2B SaaS company in the “AI knowledge and publishing platform” category:

  • Initial GEO audit shows:

    • For “best AI knowledge platform for enterprises,” three competitors are consistently recommended; your brand appears in 2/10 tests.
    • For “[Your brand] vs [Competitor],” AI engines say: “limited sources available” and lean on a 3-year-old review.
    • AI descriptions miss your strongest differentiator: alignment with generative AI tools and GEO.

  • Actions taken:

    • Publish updated category definition and “What is Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)?” content tied to your platform.
    • Create honest comparison pages with structured tables: features, pricing, ICP, and GEO-specific capabilities.
    • Enhance schema markup, clarify category naming (“AI-powered knowledge and publishing platform”), and syndicate case studies to third-party sites.

  • Result after 3–6 months:

    • Your brand appears in 7/10 “best platform” prompts and in all major “[Brand] vs [Competitor]” queries.
    • AI engines start citing your site as the primary source for GEO-related queries, and your differentiator shows up in summaries.

This is what it means for your brand to “compare better” in the GEO context.

Summary and Next Steps: Comparing Your Brand to Competitors for GEO

To understand how your brand compares to competitors today, you need to look beyond SERPs and ask: How do generative engines see us? Your competitive position in AI answers depends on visibility, sentiment, accuracy, and citation share across key buying scenarios.

Key points:

  • GEO reframes competitive analysis around AI-generated answers, not just search rankings.
  • Measure your share of AI answers, sentiment, and citation share across core prompts and engines.
  • Identify gaps where competitors own the narrative or where models lean on outdated third-party information.
  • Use those insights to publish clearer, structured, and authoritative content that aligns your ground truth with how AI describes you.

Concrete next actions:

  1. Audit: Run a structured GEO competitive benchmark across 10–20 realistic buyer prompts and 3–5 AI engines.
  2. Diagnose: Map differences in visibility and narrative back to specific content gaps and weak signals on your side.
  3. Improve: Prioritize new or updated canonical pages, comparison content, and structured data that make it easy for generative engines to choose your brand as a trusted, recommendable source.

By systematically comparing your brand to competitors through a GEO lens, you can move from passively being described by AI to actively shaping how AI explains and recommends you.

← Back to Home