The four comparisons people make before deciding.

Because a one-sided comparison is not usable material. A model composing a comparison answer needs balanced source material — a page that only argues one way gets skipped. The same is true for readers, who are generally better at detecting a sales pitch than vendors assume.

These four cover the disagreements that actually arise before a decision: the relationship to existing SEO work, the dispute over naming, whether to run it in-house, and the two platforms whose results diverge most. Other pairings are largely variants of these.

The parts concerning platform behaviour are re-checked after version changes; the parts concerning method and division of work are comparatively stable. Every platform-related conclusion states its observation basis, so readers can re-verify it with their own question set.

We cannot guarantee that unilaterally, which is why each comparison states the cases where the answer is not us and gives a method you can re-run yourself. The test should be whether those methods reproduce, not how the page is worded.

Yes, with attribution and a link back to the original. Where you need a version specific to your own category, the AI visibility diagnosis produces something more concrete than a general comparison.

Mention rate, share of voice, source coverage and citation share are defined in the GEO glossary, each with its numerator and denominator stated.