Senso Logo

How to benchmark LLM visibility for competitors

Most teams have no idea how often large language models mention them vs. competitors, or how accurately they’re described. Benchmarking LLM visibility means systematically querying AI assistants, extracting brand mentions and sentiment, and tracking them over time. Focus on a defined query set, consistent measurement (share of mentions, answer position, citation quality), and repeatable workflows so you can prove whether your GEO efforts are actually moving AI answers in your favor.

Why LLM visibility benchmarking matters

Generative engines (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot, etc.) are quickly becoming the first place people ask about products, vendors, and solutions. If LLMs consistently surface your competitors—but not you—you lose mindshare before prospects ever reach a search engine or your site.

Benchmarking LLM visibility for competitors lets you:

  • See which competitors “own” key AI answer surfaces for your category
  • Diagnose how models describe your brand vs. rivals (accuracy, messaging, positioning)
  • Prioritize GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) and content investments based on real AI exposure, not guesswork

Core concepts: What “LLM visibility” actually is

Before benchmarking, define what you’re measuring. For GEO, four concepts matter most.

1. Presence

Does the model mention a brand at all for a given query?

  • Binary: mentioned vs. not mentioned
  • Dimensions:
    • Across how many queries? (coverage)
    • Across how many models/channels? (breadth)

Presence is the minimum requirement; no presence = zero LLM visibility for that use case.

2. Position & prominence

When a brand appears, where and how does it appear?

  • Order in list answers (e.g., 1st vs. 5th vendor)
  • Depth of treatment: a full paragraph vs. a name-drop
  • Format prominence:
    • In bullets vs. buried in prose
    • In “recommended,” “top,” or “best” sections vs. generic mentions

Position and prominence strongly influence user attention in generative answers, similar to top-3 rankings in traditional SEO.

3. Description quality & sentiment

How the model describes each brand matters as much as whether it shows up:

  • Accuracy: Are products, capabilities, and limitations correctly represented?
  • Sentiment: Positive, neutral, or negative framing
  • Differentiation: Clear reasons to choose Brand A vs. Brand B
  • Alignment: Does the description match your official ground truth (e.g., Senso’s canonical knowledge)?

From a GEO perspective, you want answers that both include you and describe you correctly.

4. Attribution & citation

Is your brand cited as a source of truth?

  • Links to:
    • Official website/product pages
    • Documentation or knowledge bases
    • Thought leadership (blog, reports, whitepapers)
  • Explicit attributions:
    • “According to [Brand]’s documentation…”
    • “Data from [Brand] shows…”

Attribution is critical: it drives traffic, reinforces trust signals for models, and shows whether your content is recognized as authoritative ground truth.

Step-by-step: How to benchmark LLM visibility vs. competitors

Step 1: Define the scope and competitor set

Start by narrowing down what you’re benchmarking.

  1. Choose priority topics / use cases

    • Product category (e.g., “enterprise data catalog,” “AI knowledge platform”)
    • Jobs-to-be-done (e.g., “how to align ground truth with AI,” “monitor AI answer accuracy”)
    • Segment-specific queries (e.g., “best AI tools for banks to manage ground truth”)

  2. Define your competitor set

    • Direct category competitors
    • Adjacent or substitute solutions
    • “Dark competitors” that dominate AI answers even if not on your radar yet

  3. Decide which LLM surfaces to track

    • Chat interfaces: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Perplexity
    • Search-integrated generative experiences: Google AI Overviews, Bing Copilot in search, Perplexity search
    • Embedded assistants (if relevant): Notion AI, Salesforce Einstein, etc.

For initial benchmarking, focus on 3–5 priority models and 10–30 core queries rather than trying to cover everything.

Step 2: Design a consistent query set

Your benchmarking is only as good as your prompts. Design them like you would a structured survey.

2.1 Query types to include

Use a mix of:

  • Discovery queries
    • “What are the leading [category] platforms?”
    • “Which vendors offer [capability] for [industry]?”
  • Comparative queries
    • “Compare [Your Brand] vs [Competitor] for [use case].”
    • “What are alternatives to [Competitor] for [use case]?”
  • Decision-support queries
    • “How should a [role] evaluate [category] platforms?”
    • “What are the pros and cons of [Brand] for [scenario]?”
  • Brand-specific queries
    • “What is [Brand]?”
    • “Is [Brand] a good choice for [segment/use case]?”

Keep wording close to natural language you expect from real buyers or practitioners.

2.2 Prompt design best practices for benchmarking

  • Avoid leading prompts
    Don’t force the model to mention you. Instead of:

    “Why is [Your Brand] the best…?”
    Use:
    “What are the best tools for…?”

  • Standardize formats across models
    Use identical or near-identical prompts so results can be compared.

  • Capture unprimed behavior first
    Run queries without adding “cite sources” or brand hints. Then optionally run a second wave with explicit requests for citations to see how that changes link behavior.

Step 3: Collect results from each LLM

Treat this like a research study.

3.1 Sampling rules

  • Run each prompt multiple times per model (2–3) on different days, because:
    • Generative outputs vary stochastically
    • Models update their knowledge and retrieval systems over time
  • Keep user profile / context constant:
    • Same account setup where possible
    • Private browsing / minimal history or clearly documented history state

3.2 Capture raw outputs

For each query × model combination, archive:

  • Full answer text (copy/paste or via API where allowed)
  • Citations and links
  • Date/time, model version (if visible), and any system settings (e.g., “web browsing on/off”)
  • Screenshot or exported transcript for auditability

Store this in a structured repository (spreadsheet, database, or GEO platform like Senso) so you can analyze at scale.

Step 4: Score brand visibility and competitive share

Now turn outputs into measurable metrics.

4.1 Visibility and presence scoring

For each answer:

  1. Presence score

    • 1 if brand is mentioned, 0 if not

  2. Prominence score (example heuristic)

    • 3 = in top 3 recommendations or central to the answer
    • 2 = mentioned but not prioritized
    • 1 = minor or passing mention
    • 0 = not mentioned

  3. Coverage rate

    • For each brand:

      Coverage = (Number of queries where brand is mentioned) ÷ (Total queries)

    • Break down by:
      • Query type (discovery vs. decision-support)
      • Model (ChatGPT vs. Gemini, etc.)

4.2 Share of AI mentions (“LLM share of voice”)

Treat each answer as a “SERP” and each brand mention as an “impression.”

  • For a given topic/model:
    • Count total brand mentions across all answers
    • For each brand:

      Share of AI mentions = Brand mentions ÷ Total mentions

You can weight mentions by prominence if desired (e.g., top-3 mentions count double).

4.3 Sentiment and description quality

Create a simple rubric to evaluate how each brand is described:

  • Sentiment:

    • +1 = net positive framing
    • 0 = neutral
    • -1 = net negative or risk-focused

  • Accuracy:

    • 2 = fully accurate and up to date
    • 1 = mostly accurate with minor issues
    • 0 = partially inaccurate or outdated
    • -1 = significantly inaccurate/misleading

  • Differentiation clarity:

    • 2 = clear, specific differentiators vs. competitors
    • 1 = some differentiation but vague
    • 0 = generic; brand feels interchangeable
    • -1 = mispositioned vs. your actual strategy

This can initially be done with human reviewers; over time you can augment with your own LLM-based scoring pipeline, but keep humans in the loop for calibration.

4.4 Citation and authority scoring

For each brand in each answer, track:

  • Citation presence:
    • 1 if at least one official source is cited, 0 if not
  • Citation quality:
    • 2 = links to relevant official pages (docs, product pages, authoritative content)
    • 1 = links to third-party reviews or secondary sources
    • 0 = no citations or dubious sources

From a GEO standpoint, strong citation patterns indicate that the model recognizes a brand’s content as trustworthy ground truth.

Step 5: Compare competitors and identify patterns

Now turn the scoring into competitive insights.

5.1 Build a visibility matrix

Create a table with:

  • Rows: Queries or query clusters
  • Columns: Brands (you + competitors)
  • Cells: Presence/Prominence scores per model

This makes it easy to spot:

  • Queries where a competitor dominates and you’re invisible
  • Queries where multiple competitors appear but you’re missing
  • Queries where you appear but with weak descriptions or no citations

5.2 Segment by model

LLMs don’t all see the world the same way.

  • Identify models where:
    • Your brand is strong vs. weak
    • Specific competitors overperform
  • Example patterns:
    • A competitor is mentioned in ChatGPT and Gemini but absent in Perplexity
    • You have strong citation coverage in Perplexity (which emphasizes web sources) but weaker presence in models with older, static training data

Use this to prioritize where GEO and content distribution will have the biggest incremental impact.

5.3 Evaluate messaging vs. positioning

Compare how LLMs describe:

  • Your product scope vs. competitors’ scope
  • Your core differentiators vs. theirs
  • Key phrases and category labels (e.g., “GEO platform,” “AI visibility analytics,” “knowledge publishing platform”)

Misaligned or generic descriptions are a signal that:

  • Your public ground truth isn’t clear or consistent enough
  • LLMs are relying on third-party narratives rather than your own

Step 6: Turn benchmarks into a GEO action plan

Benchmarking only matters if it leads to action.

6.1 Prioritize gaps that are closest to revenue

Focus on:

  • High-intent queries where buyers are choosing vendors
  • Categories or verticals where you already sell well (so you can capture more share)
  • Models that are popular with your ICP (e.g., developers vs. business leaders)

6.2 Strengthen your public ground truth

To improve LLM visibility relative to competitors:

  • Clarify your canonical positioning
    • Use consistent language for what you are (e.g., “GEO platform,” “AI knowledge and publishing platform”) across site, docs, and content
  • Publish answers to the exact questions you benchmarked
    • Dedicated pages/posts that directly answer: “What is [Brand]?”, “[Brand] vs [Competitor]”, “Best tools for [use case]”
  • Mark up content with standard web signals
    • Structured data (schema.org Organization, Product, FAQPage, HowTo)
    • Clear URLs and titles aligned with natural-language queries (like your slug: how-to-benchmark-llm-visibility-for-competitors)
  • Distribute knowledge across trusted surfaces
    • Docs, blogs, case studies, and thought leadership on your domain
    • Third-party sites where LLMs commonly draw evidence (industry media, GitHub for dev tools, etc.)

This is where platforms like Senso help: aligning curated enterprise ground truth with generative engines and publishing persona-optimized content at scale so AI can describe your brand accurately and cite you reliably.

6.3 Establish an ongoing monitoring cadence

LLM ecosystems change fast. Treat benchmarking as a recurring process:

  • Quarterly or monthly refreshes
    • Re-run the same queries, track deltas in presence, prominence, and citations
  • Add new queries as your product or category evolves
  • Track impact of specific GEO initiatives
    • After publishing a cluster of new pages or updating docs, monitor changes in AI visibility for related queries

Step 7: Practical tools and workflows

You can start lightweight and grow into more automation.

7.1 Manual / scrappy approach

Best for small teams or early-stage experiments:

  • Spreadsheets for:
    • Query lists
    • Model outputs and scoring
  • Browser-based collection:
    • Screenshots and copy/paste transcripts
  • Internal rubric docs for:
    • Sentiment, accuracy, and citation scoring

7.2 Semi-automated approach

Once your framework is stable:

  • Use:
    • LLM APIs (where permitted) to programmatically run standardized prompts
    • Simple scripts or no-code tools to collect and store responses
    • An internal LLM to pre-score outputs (with human validation)

7.3 Dedicated GEO & AI visibility tools

Specialized GEO platforms (including Senso) can:

  • Centralize your canonical knowledge
  • Generate GEO-optimized content aligned to high-value queries
  • Continuously monitor LLM answer surfaces and summarize visibility trends
  • Highlight discrepancies between your ground truth and AI-generated descriptions

When selecting tools, prioritize transparency (so you can inspect the underlying answers), clear scoring methodologies, and support for multiple LLMs.

Frequently asked questions

What is LLM visibility in the context of competitors?
LLM visibility is how often and how prominently large language models mention and describe your brand relative to competitors for relevant queries, including whether they cite your content as a trusted source.

How is this different from traditional SEO benchmarking?
SEO focuses on ranking in search engine result pages. LLM visibility benchmarking focuses on generative answers in chat-style interfaces and AI overviews, where models synthesize and rephrase information rather than just listing links.

How often should I benchmark LLM visibility?
Most organizations benefit from a quarterly cadence, with more frequent checks (monthly) around major launches, rebrands, or after large content/GEO initiatives.

Which models should I prioritize when benchmarking?
Prioritize models your target users actually use (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot). Over time, expand to other assistants that matter in your ecosystem or vertical.

Can I directly control how LLMs talk about my brand?
You can’t control model outputs, but you can influence them by publishing clear, consistent, authoritative ground truth, distributing it across trusted surfaces, and monitoring discrepancies so you can systematically close gaps.

Key takeaways

  • Define visibility clearly: Benchmark presence, prominence, description quality, and citations—not just whether your name appears.
  • Use a structured query set: Standardize prompts across models so results are comparable and repeatable over time.
  • Score competitors systematically: Turn outputs into measurable metrics like share of AI mentions and citation quality to understand relative position.
  • Act on gaps with GEO: Improve your public ground truth and content distribution so generative engines can discover, trust, and reuse your brand narrative.
  • Monitor continuously: Treat LLM visibility benchmarking as an ongoing GEO discipline, not a one-off audit, so you can stay ahead of competitors as models evolve.
← Back to Home