A visibility score is a choice, not a measurement

A four by four evaluation grid with some capabilities checked

The short version

  • Every AI visibility score has a denominator: the set of prompts someone chose to track. Change the set and the score changes with it.
  • This is not a bug, but it is an unusually easy metric to flatter — and almost nobody in the category writes about it.
  • Measured evidence that prompt type matters: AI Overviews appeared in 86% of prompts in one 500,000-prompt analysis, rising to 88.5% for decision-stage prompts.
  • Semrush found AI visibility behaves topic by topic rather than brand-wide, so the topics you track decide the number you get.

Here is a way to raise your AI visibility score by twenty points this afternoon, without changing a word on your website.

Add branded prompts to your tracked set. “What does Acme do?” “Is Acme any good?” “Acme pricing.” Your brand appears in nearly all of those answers, because your brand is in the question. Your visibility percentage climbs. Nothing about how AI treats you has changed.

Nobody in this category writes about this, for the obvious reason that it makes the headline number look soft. It is worth writing about anyway, because if you are about to spend money on one of these tools, it is the first thing you should understand.

What a visibility score actually is

Strip away the branding and the metric is simple: of the prompts we track, in what share does your brand appear?

Both halves are chosen. Someone picked the prompts. Someone defined “appear.” The result is a ratio whose denominator is an editorial decision.

The comparison that does not work

Two brands' visibility scores are only comparable if they were measured on the same prompt set. A competitor's "78% visibility" in a case study tells you nothing about your 41%, because you are not measuring the same thing. This applies to your own history too: a score from before you revised the prompt set is not on the same axis as one from after.

The evidence that prompt choice moves the number

This is not just a theoretical worry. Three measured findings show how much the question set determines the result.

Funnel stage changes engine behaviour. Peec AI analysed roughly 500,000 prompts and found AI Overviews appeared in 86% of them overall, rising to 88.5% for decision-stage prompts. They also note the dataset skews toward commercial buying intent and excludes navigational queries.1 That disclosure is the honest part, and it makes the point: the sample determines the finding.

Visibility is topic-level, not brand-level. Semrush tracked more than 50,000 brands across 1,094 US categories from January to June 2026 and found that only 21% of the most-cited domains in a category were also the most-mentioned brand, with a slightly negative correlation of −0.229 between the two.2 Strength in one topic does not transfer. So a prompt set weighted toward your strong topics produces a strong score, honestly measured and thoroughly misleading.

Activation varies by category. The Washington University measurement study collected 55,393 trending queries across 19 categories and found AI Overview activation differing across them.3 Which categories your questions fall into changes how often there is even an AI answer to appear in.

ONE BRAND, TWO PROMPT SETS Prompt set A · branded-heavy 78% "Is Acme good?" · "Acme pricing" "Acme vs competitor" Prompt set B · unbranded buying questions 34% "Best tool for a 20-person team" "How do I solve X?"

Same brand, same week, same models. Only the question set differs.

An illustration, not measured data. A worked example of how prompt-set composition drives the headline number. The mechanism is real; these particular figures are made up to show it.

Four ways a prompt set quietly flatters you

  1. Branded prompts Your name is in the question, so you are in the answer. These are worth tracking — reputation and accuracy questions matter — but they belong in their own bucket, never blended into a headline visibility number.
  2. Topics you already own Because visibility is topic-level, a set weighted toward your strengths reports strength. The prompts that matter commercially are usually the ones you are currently losing.
  3. Phrasings that suit you "Best enterprise-grade tool with SOC 2" and "cheapest tool for a small team" are the same buying decision with different qualifiers, and they will return different brands. Whoever writes the qualifier picks the winner.
  4. Silent revisions The most common version of this is not deliberate. Someone prunes prompts that "aren't relevant any more," the number jumps, and the jump gets reported as progress. If the prompt set changed, the series broke.
Adding prompts changes what you measure, not how you perform. Any number that moves when you edit the question list is telling you about the list.

Keeping it honest

None of this makes the metric useless. Every measurement discipline has a sampling frame, and choosing one is not cheating. What matters is that the frame is deliberate, documented and stable.

  1. Write the prompt set down, with reasons Each prompt should map to a decision a buyer actually makes. If nobody can say why a prompt is in the set, it is padding.
  2. Segment before you blend Branded and unbranded reported separately. Funnel stage separately. Otherwise a mix shift reads as a performance change.
  3. Freeze the core set Keep a stable core you never edit, so you have one continuous series. Run experimental prompts alongside it, not inside it.
  4. Version it like code Date every change and annotate the chart where it happened. When the number jumps, the first question should be answerable immediately: did we change, or did the list?
  5. Include the questions you lose A prompt set with no losses in it is not a measurement instrument. The uncomfortable prompts are the ones with information in them.

Questions we get asked

How many prompts is enough?

Enough that one unusual answer cannot move the headline figure, and enough to cover the real buying decisions in your category. Beyond that, more prompts mostly buy resolution, not accuracy. Coverage of decisions beats raw count.

Should we ever add prompts, then?

Yes — when the business changes. A new product, a new segment, a new market is a real reason. "Our score is down" is not. Add to a separate series and annotate the date.

Our agency reports a much higher number than our internal tool. Who is right?

Probably both, on different prompt sets. Ask for the list before you ask about the methodology — that usually explains the gap on its own.

Isn't it against your interest to publish this?

In the short term, a bit. But a metric that clients stop trusting is worth nothing to anyone selling it, and this category will get audited eventually. We would rather be early.

The short of it

Ask any vendor — us included — to show you the prompt list before the dashboard. Ask how branded prompts are handled. Ask what happens to the series when the list is edited.

A tool that answers those three questions well is measuring something. One that changes the subject is selling you a number.

Sources

  1. Peec AI, "AI Overviews is the most undertracked AI search: 500,000 prompts show why", 28 May 2026. The authors note the dataset skews toward commercial intent and excludes navigational queries.
  2. Semrush, "AI visibility is a topic-level game: A study of 50,000 brands", 20 July 2026. 50,000+ brands, 1,094 US categories, tracked monthly January–June 2026.
  3. Xu, Iqbal & Montgomery (Washington University in St. Louis), "Measuring Google AI Overviews: Activation, Source Quality, Claim Fidelity, and Publisher Impact", arXiv 2605.14021, 13 May 2026. 55,393 trending queries across 19 categories.