What Did 3 AI Visibility Assessments Reveal About AI System Responses?
Analysis of Wix AI Visibility, Otterly AI, and Ubersuggest AI Visibility | October–November 2026
A company can be mentioned by ChatGPT without its website being cited.
An AI system can use a page as a source without naming the company that published it. And a recommendation in an AI response is not the same as a simple brand mention.
These distinctions matter to any company or entrepreneur trying to understand what it means in practice to be visible in responses generated by AI systems:
Is the company mentioned by name?
Is its website used as a source?
Is its business described accurately?
Is the company recommended as a provider for a specific need?
This article brings together the results of three assessments conducted in October and November 2026, using Wix AI Visibility, Otterly AI, and Ubersuggest AI Visibility.
The assessment conducted on November 3 examined 20 non-branded questions across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews: 60 responses in total.
The first two assessments, conducted with Wix AI Visibility and Otterly AI, each used 15 non-branded questions. In principle, the checks started from the same core set of questions; the main difference was the volume, expanded to 20 in Ubersuggest.
The tools covered different combinations of AI systems and reported their own metrics.
The study compares what the three tools reported, explains what the metrics mean, and shows which first-party and external sources were identified.
Percentages are presented alongside their denominators, and screenshots from the reports allow readers to verify the examples discussed.
What do AI Visibility tools actually measure, and how much can we rely on reported percentages when assessing a company’s presence in AI responses?
The analysis distinguishes between company mentions, website citations, brand descriptions, and commercial recommendations. These are different observations. No percentage should be interpreted separately from the questions, platforms, and comparison group that produced it.
The analysis highlights the differences between brand mentions, website citations, and commercial recommendations, explains how to interpret Share of Voice, and shows which information is genuinely useful to a company seeking to assess, strengthen, or develop its visibility across AI systems.
What You’ll Find in This Study
Results measured by Wix AI Visibility, Otterly AI, and Ubersuggest AI Visibility.
The difference between a brand mention, a page citation, and a company recommendation.
An explanation of the 100% and 7.89% Share of Voice figures, with screenshots from both reports.
Practical examples for businesses: how to interpret the results and what their limitations are.
Table of Contents
No. | Section |
01 | Three Assessments, Three Perspectives on the Same Brand |
02 | What Differences Did the Three AI Visibility Assessments Reveal? |
03 | What Ubersuggest AI Visibility Confirmed |
04 | Website Cited or Brand Recommended? |
05 | Share of Voice: 100% vs. 7.89%, Explained with Screenshots from Both Original Reports |
06 | Brand Accuracy: A Positive Description Can Be Incomplete |
07 | What a Company Can Learn About Its Own AI Visibility |
08 | Conclusions and Sources |
1. Three Assessments, Three Perspectives on the Same Brand
On October 22–23, 2026, Mirio Development was assessed using Otterly AI and Wix AI Visibility.
The Ubersuggest AI Visibility assessment was added on November 3, 2026.
The purpose of the comparison is to see what each tool observes in AI system responses. The results may confirm the brand’s presence or the use of its content as a source.
Instrument | Date | Representative metrics |
Otterly AI | October 22 | 27% Brand Coverage; 45% Domain Coverage |
Wix AI Visibility | October 23 | ChatGPT 47%; Gemini 13%; Perplexity 27% |
Ubersuggest AI Search Visibility | November 3 | 48.3% Brand Visibility; 48.3% Citation Share |
Note: 27% Brand Coverage and 48.3% Brand Visibility should not be interpreted as a growth trend.
The indicators have different definitions, and the assessments covered 15 and 20 questions, respectively.
The question set largely retained the same core, but the tools and combinations of AI systems were not identical.
A comparison over time requires conditions to remain as consistent as possible and each indicator to be interpreted according to its definition.
What Did Wix AI Visibility Show in October?
In Wix, the assessment included 15 non-branded questions for each of the three reported systems.
The website appeared in 7 of 15 responses for ChatGPT (47%), 2 of 15 for Gemini (13%), and 4 of 15 for Perplexity (27%).
Wix also includes cases in this assessment where a website is cited without explicitly mentioning the company name.
Alongside the percentages, Wix separately displayed how each system described the brand. These summaries are not equivalent to visibility scores: they make it possible to check the context and accuracy of the information attributed to the company.
ChatGPT describes the company as providing web development and digital marketing services.
Gemini focuses on digital consulting and mentions specific industries.
Perplexity describes web development and digital strategy services, including GEO and Digital Authority.
The comparison shows why it is worth checking both the percentages and the exact wording used by each system.
What Did Otterly AI Show?
Otterly AI reported 27% Brand Coverage for Mirio Development, an average position of 1.03 in responses where the brand was identified, and 70% Share of Voice within the comparison group. Separately, miriodev.ro recorded 45% Domain Coverage, meaning the domain appeared among the sources cited in that assessment.
Otterly AI, October 22, 2026: Mirio Development’s position in the brand rankings, with 27% Brand Coverage and 70% Share of Voice.
Otterly AI, October 22, 2026: miriodev.ro, with 45% Domain Coverage in the cited domains table.
The difference between 27% and 45% tells us something concrete: an AI system can use information from a website without naming the company that published it.
This matters especially in B2B, where documentation can be useful to someone interested in a solution even if the AI response does not explicitly recommend the provider.
2. What Differences Did the Three AI Visibility Assessments Reveal?
The terms displayed in English by the platforms are not synonyms. To interpret a report correctly, we need to distinguish between a company name appearing, a page being used as a source, and a company receiving a commercial recommendation.
Indicator | What it measures | What it does not demonstrate on its own |
Brand Visibility / Coverage | The explicit appearance of the company name in monitored responses. | That the company is recommended or selected by potential customers. |
Domain Coverage / Citation Share | The use of the domain or its pages as sources, according to each tool. | That the brand is explicitly mentioned or that a human visited the website. |
Share of Voice | The share of mentions relative to the entities in the comparison group. | A company’s market share or commercial superiority. |
For example, a technical explanation may cite MirioDev.ro and omit the name Mirio Development; in another response, the company may be mentioned without a link.
These are two valid but different observations. Neither automatically amounts to a purchase recommendation.
An indicator only makes sense when considered alongside its calculation base.
At Wix, the percentages shown above are based on 15 questions for each platform. In Ubersuggest, each of the 20 non-branded questions was assessed across three platforms, resulting in 60 responses in total.
3. What Ubersuggest AI Search Visibility Confirmed
The Ubersuggest assessment on November 3 tracked 20 non-branded questions.
Each question was checked across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews:
20 responses per system, 60 in total.
At the time, Perplexity was not integrated into the Ubersuggest AI Search Visibility feature, so this report contains no Perplexity results.
Ubersuggest identified the company in 29 of the 60 responses, resulting in 48.3% Brand Visibility.
Separately, 29 responses included citations associated with the domain, and the report identified 16 pages from the company’s website as cited.
The table distinguishes between company mentions and website citations because the same question can produce one of these signals without necessarily producing the other.
AI system | Company mentioned | Website cited |
Google AI Overviews | 14/20 (70%) | 8/20 (40%) |
ChatGPT | 10/20 (50%) | 9/20 (45%) |
Gemini | 5/20 (25%) | 12/20 (60%) |
Total | 29/60 (48.3%) | 29/60 (48.3%) |
These percentages describe only the responses to the 20 monitored questions, not all online searches. Google AI Overviews identifying Mirio Development in 14 out of 20 responses is a strong finding for this set, not a claim about all Google responses.
The platform figures show different patterns:
Google AI Overviews mentioned the company in 70% of responses but cited its website in 40%;
in Gemini, the report recorded 25% mentions and 60% citations;
in ChatGPT, the two figures were close, at 50% and 45%.
These differences describe the set that was checked and should not be extrapolated to all questions asked of these systems.
One other result deserves separate attention from brand mentions: source citations.
For the same set of 60 responses, the report shows 29 responses containing citations associated with Mirio and 16 of the company’s own pages cited.
Citations and mentions are two distinct measurements, even though both have the same aggregate value here: 48.3%.
4. Website Cited or Brand Recommended? Evidence from the Reports
The figure of 16 pages from the company’s website cited is important because it indicates that multiple MirioDev.ro resources were used, not just that the company name appeared occasionally.
But it is important to be precise about what this figure represents: 16 distinct URLs identified as sources in the monitored responses, not 16 commercial recommendations.
Which Pages Were Cited Most Often?
MirioDev.ro Page | Responses Citing It |
7 | |
5 | |
5 | |
4 |
The Digital Authority and AI Visibility guide was also identified in the Otterly assessment.
The same is true of How to Get Cited by AI.
Both pages also appear in the Ubersuggest list; the AI Visibility case study was also cited in 5 responses.
In addition to the company’s own pages, the Ubersuggest report identified 84 external pages across 74 domains.
One example is an article about agencies in Romania that discusses AI Visibility, which appeared in 4 of the 60 responses.
Such an appearance shows that responses can bring together information from publications and independent sources; it does not demonstrate that the article alone caused the company to be mentioned.
For a company with a website, the distinction is practical:
being used as a source shows that the published information is relevant;
being mentioned as a provider shows that the system associated that information with a company;
being commercially recommended is an additional step that is not automatically measured by every tool.
5. Share of Voice: 100% vs. 7.89%, Explained with Original Screenshots
Both Ubersuggest reports were exported on the same date, for the same 20 non-branded questions and the same three platforms. Brand Visibility remains at 48.3% in both.
What changes is the group used to calculate Share of Voice.
Narrow comparison group: 15 agencies in Romania
Ubersuggest automatically identified 15 agencies with activities or services similar to those being assessed and classified them as monitored competitors.
Within this narrow group, the report assigns Mirio Development 100% Share of Voice. This figure refers to mentions within this selection of non-branded prompts; it does not represent market share or the entire digital services market.
Expanded Group: 250 Entities from Multiple Countries
The second report includes 250 entities from different countries and categories. In addition to agencies, it includes platforms, tools, organizations, and companies from other sectors that do not directly compete commercially with Mirio Development.
Within this broader group, Share of Voice is 7.89%, rounded to 8% in the summary.
Comparison element | Narrow report | Expanded report |
Group included | 15 automatically identified agencies | 250 international entities, including platforms and organizations |
Mirio Brand Visibility | 48.3% | 48.3% |
Mirio Share of Voice | 100% | 7.89% |
What it describes | Share of mentions within the narrow group | Share of mentions within the expanded group |
Correct interpretation: 100% does not mean that Mirio dominates the market, and 7.89% is not market share. The comparison group is different, although the same 20 questions and three AI systems are used.
Mirio Development does not view these results as competition with other agencies.
The study aims to explain what these figures can tell companies seeking to understand AI Visibility and help them distinguish between presence in responses, cited sources, and accurate descriptions of their business.
6. Brand Accuracy: A Positive Description Can Be Incomplete
Ubersuggest classifies the overall sentiment of responses about Mirio Development as positive. This is a favorable result, but sentiment does not measure the accuracy of every statement generated about a company.
The examples summarized in the report also include descriptions that define the company’s profile too narrowly.
One description presents Mirio Development as a provider of services “dedicated exclusively to construction companies.” The company has documented experience in this field, but its services are not offered exclusively to the construction sector.
This example explains why AI Trust is not limited to positive sentiment.
A company can be mentioned favorably yet described incompletely. For a business owner, this distinction can matter: an overly narrow description may exclude potential customers from other sectors from the response.
The issue is explored separately in the article Why Can AI Misdescribe Your Company.
The report’s finding does not prove that all systems make this association or that it has already caused commercial harm.
7. What a Company Can Learn About Its Own AI Visibility
Beyond the figures for Mirio Development, this study offers a way to interpret any AI Visibility report with care.
For a company that sells products, technical solutions, or services, these three situations can have different meanings:
What the report shows | What it means in practice | What still needs to be checked |
The website is cited, but the company name is missing. | The information is used as a source without being explicitly associated with the provider. | Whether the information is attributed correctly and whether the company is identified in other responses. |
The company name appears, but the website is not cited. | The brand is recognized, but the response does not link directly to one of the company’s own resources. | Which sources supported the mention and whether the description is accurate. |
The company is mentioned, but the description is incomplete. | Visibility can coexist with positioning errors or specializations presented too narrowly. | Which claims are accurate and how the description may affect understanding of the company’s offer. |
Useful Questions to Ask Before Interpreting Any Percentage
Does the score measure whether the company name is mentioned, whether its website is cited, or something else?
Which AI systems are included, and which are missing from the report?
Is Share of Voice measured against direct competitors or a broad group of entities?
Does the report provide verifiable evidence, and does it correctly distinguish informational presence from commercial recommendation?
The answers to these questions do not replace an analysis specific to each company, but they can help prevent misinterpretation. Especially in B2B, decisions about developing digital visibility should take into account the company’s objectives, actual offer, available resources, and how potential customers research solutions before making a purchase.
Discussions in the field address the same issues highlighted by these reports: what visibility means, what exactly is being measured, and how to choose the questions.
Search Engine Land’s analysis of the indicators in an AI Visibility Index explains why results need to be read in the context of the metric being used.
An article published in TechCrunch defines visibility through several forms—mentions, recommendations, descriptions, and citations—and emphasizes that the result depends on the platform, the wording of the question, and the context.
A monitoring list should start with the questions and decisions potential customers face, then remain stable enough for assessments to be compared.
Further reading includes Answer Engine Optimization, content systems and measurement loops, and the interpretation of AI Visibility data, also discussed in Neil Patel’s analysis of the limitations of measurement.
8. Conclusions and Sources
What do the three tools confirm?
Mirio Development is identified in AI responses relevant to the areas assessed, and the company’s own pages on MirioDev.ro are used as sources.
Ubersuggest AI Search Visibility provides further evidence through 20 non-branded questions, 60 responses, 29 responses with citations, and 16 of the company’s own pages cited.
What can we not claim based on this data?
That the visibility percentage automatically increased from one assessment to the next, that mentions represent requests for proposals, or that the results would be reproduced identically for every business. Differences between the tools and comparison groups are part of the interpretation.
Main conclusion: The value of an AI Visibility report does not come from the most impressive percentage, but from its ability to explain precisely what was observed, which sources support the findings, and what they mean for a company’s decisions.
The value of this study lies in the actions that follow the interpretation of the data: correcting a description, updating a cited page, or choosing the questions for the next assessment.
Priorities depend on each company’s objectives, offer, and resources.
Do you want to find out how your company appears in AI responses, or do you need an action plan for the next 12 months?
Request an AI Visibility Audit for a one-time assessment or an Annual GEO and AI Visibility Implementation Strategy.
For more on cited pages and the selection process:
