AI presentation platform

How an AI presentation platform ranks #12 of 401 tools on AI search visibility

An AI presentation platform ranks 12th of 401 tracked presentation tools on AI visibility across ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity, placing it in the top 3% of its category, with a 3.2 average citation rank when named and 74% positive sentiment.

Published October 2026 · Results for AI visibility snapshot

Services: GEO, Content
Worked with: Managed Service
Engines tracked: ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity
Category tracked: 401 presentation tools

The results

AI visibility rank: #12 / 401; Of 401 presentation tools tracked across three AI assistants. The top 3% of the category.
Average citation rank: 3.2; Its average position in an AI answer when it is named, across the tracked period.
Positive sentiment: 74%; Average sentiment of tracked AI mentions. Described favorably, not just listed.
First-named mentions: 44; Times it was the first tool an AI answer named, across the tracked period.

Want numbers like these?

Book a call and we will show you where the same gains are on your site.

Book a call

About the client

A B2B SaaS company selling an AI presentation maker to professional teams. It turns rough material into finished, on-brand decks, and is used by thousands of teams.

The category is crowded and well funded, and the shortlist is increasingly written by AI assistants. When a buyer asks ChatGPT or Gemini for the best presentation tool, the brands named in that answer are often the only ones considered at all. The goal was to be one of them, and to be named early and favorably.

The challenge

AI assistants write the shortlist

Buyers increasingly ask ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity for the best presentation tool. A brand missing from that answer never reaches the shortlist, however good the product is.

A loud, well-funded category

401 tracked tools compete for the same AI answers. Incumbents such as Beautiful.ai, Gamma and Canva have years of content and citation authority, so out-publishing them on raw volume was not realistic.

Visibility moved without a system

AI answers shift from query to query and week to week. Without continuous tracking and a citation strategy, there was no way to tell whether the brand was winning, why, or how to defend the position.

What we did

Measure the category, position against the prompts that convert, make owned pages citable, then reinforce how the brand is described once it is named.

Track
Every answer scored
Set up continuous monitoring of the brand's rank against 401 tracked competitors on ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity, with every answer scored. AI visibility became a measured, managed number instead of a guess, and the gaps worth closing became visible.
Position
Top-5 peak visibility
Mapped the high-intent prompts AI assistants answer for buyers, such as investor pitch decks, board meeting decks and case-study decks, and built content to be the answer to those exact prompts rather than chasing generic category terms.
Cite
Top-4 cited page in the category
Structured the homepage and key pages so AI assistants can cite them directly in their answers. The homepage is now one of the four most-cited pages in the entire category, a direct measure of owned-domain authority on the AI shelf.
Reinforce
Managed for sentiment, not just reach
Shaped how the brand is described in AI-generated answers, not just whether it appears. Every favorable, first-named citation makes the next answer more likely to name it first, so sentiment and mention order were managed as closely as raw visibility.

The outcome

The brand sits in the top 3% of a 401-tool category on AI visibility, and owned pages are cited directly. Continuous tracking is in place to defend that position as AI answers shift and AI search grows.

Why it worked

In a category curated by AI assistants, being named isn't enough. Being named early, often and favorably is what turns visibility into consideration. The work targeted the prompts buyers actually ask, owned pages the engines could cite and how the brand is described, rather than trying to out-publish better-funded incumbents.