Platforms that Measure Share of Voice in ChatGPT
Ryan KingsFounder & CTOPublished September 2026 · 9 min read
Share of voice in ChatGPT is your brand’s slice of mentions or citations inside answers to a frozen prompt set, compared with the other brands in that set. Platforms that name ChatGPT in their engine list include AthenaHQ, OtterlyAI, Profound, Peec AI, and AEOForged. Those percentages are not interchangeable: mention share, URL citation rate, and generic-query SOV are different instruments. In our July 2026 AEO-category panel, ChatGPT returned a source list on 25 of 96 answers, so a name-only ChatGPT SOV can look full while citation rate is empty.
What does share of voice mean inside ChatGPT?
AthenaHQ’s explainer (13 July 2026) defines AI share of voice as the percentage of AI-generated answers that mention or cite your brand, relative to competitor mentions across a prompt set. OtterlyAI’s KPI docs write mention SOV as brand mentions divided by all brand mentions in the same set. Both formulas are only comparable if the prompt set, competitor set, and engine stay frozen.
AEOForged’s citation board does not blend branded and generic rates. When a class map exists, share of voice is computed on generic checks only — a branded prompt contains the client’s name, so no competitor can honestly “win” it. That generic-basis SOV is labelled as such. It is not a Brave-search proxy, and it is not a citation guarantee.
ChatGPT is a special case among engines we measure. ChatGPT often answers without sources: in the July 2026 AEO-category panel, ChatGPT returned at least one source URL on 25 of 96 answers (26%, Wilson 95% CI 18–36%). Gemini and Perplexity returned a source list on every recorded check in that panel. A ChatGPT SOV that only counts brand names can therefore move while the URL-citation series stays at zero.
Which platforms measure ChatGPT share of voice?
Vendor pages below are dated by retrieval on 9 September 2026. Engine lists and metric names are vendor-declared. Prices change; verify on the vendor site before you buy. This table is not a ranking.
| Platform | ChatGPT in the engine list | What they call the scoreboard | Honest caveat |
|---|---|---|---|
| AthenaHQ | Yes — ChatGPT listed among 8+ LLMs with Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews | Mention SOV, citation SOV, and position SOV as separate parts | Vendor article; we did not re-run their prompt set |
| OtterlyAI | Yes — ChatGPT listed with Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Copilot, and Claude | Brand Coverage vs Share of Voice: coverage is “appears at all”; SOV is the slice of all brand mentions | Daily prompt pulls are vendor-declared; parsers differ across tools |
| Profound | Yes — Agent Analytics names ChatGPT alongside Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity | Answer-engine insights and brand representation in conversations | Enterprise, sales-led; public homepage does not publish a SOV formula |
| Peec AI | Yes — site nav includes a ChatGPT Visibility Tracker | Visibility, position, and sentiment | Homepage does not publish the SOV denominator; ask in a demo |
| AEOForged | Yes — citation board checks ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini | Appearance outcomes plus generic-basis SOV on measured checks | First-party dogfood on aeoforged.com; not a category census. Live board: How AEOForged operates |
A third-party roundup (Layer3Labs, 28 July 2026) also places ChatGPT on Profound, Otterly, AthenaHQ, Peec, Semrush AI Toolkit, Ahrefs Brand Radar, ChatFeatured, and Writesonic GEO. Treat that as another editorial, not as our measurement.
How do mention SOV and citation rate differ?
Mention: the brand name (or a recorded alias) appears in the answer text. Citation: a URL appears in the engine’s source list. Ghost citation: a URL is listed and the brand is not named. AEOForged keeps those as peer series. They are never averaged into one “visibility %.”
That split matters most on ChatGPT. If the engine returns no source list, it cannot cite a URL. It can still name a brand. A platform that reports only mentions will look busier than a platform that reports page-tier citations on the same prompt set.
On the aeoforged.com board (6–13 August 2026), page-tier citations on generic prompts were 36 of 999 checks, all Perplexity. ChatGPT: 0 of 329. Gemini: 0 of 316. Full table and CIs: ChatGPT often answers without sources. Branded prompts are plumbing, not category authority — 560 of 611 branded checks cited us at some tier in that window.
If you compare two ChatGPT SOV numbers from two vendors, ask three questions:
- Same prompts, same week, same engine version?
- Mention, citation, or a blend?
- Generic queries only, or mixed with branded self-queries?
A “yes” on ChatGPT coverage in marketing copy does not answer those three.
How should you pick a ChatGPT SOV platform?
- Write the instrument on the scoreboard. Mention SOV, citation rate, and position are different. Refuse a blended “visibility %” that hides which one moved.
- Bring ten real buyer prompts to the demo. Vendor samples flatter coverage. Your category questions expose empty source lists.
- Ask for pull timestamp and engine version in the UI. If the tool cannot show when ChatGPT was queried, you cannot debug drift.
- Keep the prompt set frozen. AthenaHQ, citing Search Engine Land, warns that a single percentage misleads when the denominator shifts.
AEOForged’s Dominate programme measures the board on real engines and publishes strategy from those tables. It does not promise ChatGPT will cite you. Monitor ($149/mo) is the citation-board door; Dominate ($499/mo) adds content cycles. Prices: /pricing.
Disclosure: this comparison is written by the AEOForged team. Engine lists for other vendors are taken from their public pages as of 9 September 2026. Run your own prompt set on two tools before you treat either percentage as the market.