Industry benchmarks for AI Visibility: per-vertical baselines

Industry benchmarks for AI Visibility — the typical 10-Point Framework score range for brands in a given vertical — give buyers a reference point for evaluating their own brand. Knowing your brand scored 55/100 is meaningful only relative to whether the typical brand in your category scored 40, 55, or 70. This guide documents the cross-vertical benchmarks derived from our 20+ brand audit portfolio across 12 months of cross-client work plus integration with external research from the SERanking November 2025 study of 300,000 domains and other published AI search analytics. The benchmarks should be treated as directional reference rather than statistical absolutes — the audit portfolio is small relative to enterprise-scale industry surveys — but the directional patterns are reproducible and useful for buyer-side decision-making. We publish benchmarks annually in the State of AI Visibility Index with updates in quarterly drift reports. This article documents the methodology, the per-vertical baselines, and how buyers should interpret the data.

What does an industry benchmark measure?

For each vertical, the industry benchmark documents:

Median score. The midpoint of brand scores observed in the vertical. Half of brands score above, half below.

Top quartile threshold. The score above which the top 25% of brands cluster. Brands at this threshold are competitive but not category-leading.

Top decile threshold. The score above which the top 10% of brands cluster. Brands at this threshold are top-of-category for AI Visibility.

Per-dimension typical pattern. For each of the 10 dimensions in the 10-Point Framework, the typical score range for brands in the vertical.

Common gap patterns. Which dimensions brands in the vertical most commonly score low on.

The benchmarks provide buyers a calibrated reference: "is my brand's 55/100 above or below the typical vertical performance?"

What are the 2026 cross-vertical baseline benchmarks?

The cross-vertical median composite is roughly 45-55/100 (Grade D+ to C). Most brands across most verticals haven't invested systematically in AEO. Median scores are pulled down by:

• Missing Pattern A2 directories (Check 3 typical score: 4-5)
• Weak schema markup (Check 4 typical score: 4-5)
• No declared author entity on editorial content (Check 5 component)
• NAP inconsistencies (Check 6 typical score: 5-6)
• No original data publication (Check 7 typical score: 3-4)

Brands scoring 70+/100 are in the top quartile across verticals. Brands scoring 80+/100 are in the top decile.

What are the per-vertical benchmarks?

The per-vertical benchmarks vary based on category-specific patterns:

Luxury real estate (real estate agents serving $1M+ price points):

• Median composite: 45-50
• Top quartile: 65
• Top decile: 78
• Common gap: NAP consistency (brokerage moves leave stale profiles); Pattern A2 directories (FastExpert/HomeLight missing); no Wikidata

General residential real estate:

• Median composite: 40-45
• Top quartile: 60
• Top decile: 75
• Common gap: Pattern A2 directories; weak schema; no original data

Real estate brokerages:

• Median composite: 50-55
• Top quartile: 70
• Top decile: 80
• Common gap: Per-office NAP inconsistency; office-level schema missing; weak topic cluster structure

Painting contractors:

• Median composite: 50-55
• Top quartile: 68
• Top decile: 80
• Common gap: Missing Angi/HomeAdvisor/Houzz/Thumbtack; weak brand mention frequency; no original data

Restoration contractors:

• Median composite: 40-45
• Top quartile: 60
• Top decile: 75
• Common gap: GBP 24/7 signaling weak; missing IICRC directory; insurance carrier networks not claimed

General contractors (residential):

• Median composite: 42-48
• Top quartile: 62
• Top decile: 76
• Common gap: Similar to painting contractors; Houzz weight high for interior work

B2B SaaS (mid-market):

• Median composite: 55-60
• Top quartile: 72
• Top decile: 82
• Common gap: G2/Capterra/TrustRadius optimization; weak per-platform Claude optimization; backlinks weighted higher than for local verticals

Healthcare (individual practitioners + clinics):

• Median composite: 48-52
• Top quartile: 65
• Top decile: 77
• Common gap: Healthgrades/ZocDoc optimization; NPI database verification; YMYL content geometry

Legal (individual attorneys):

• Median composite: 50-55
• Top quartile: 67
• Top decile: 79
• Common gap: Avvo optimization; state bar association directory presence; FindLaw/Justia profiles

Financial advisors / RIAs:

• Median composite: 45-50
• Top quartile: 63
• Top decile: 76
• Common gap: NerdWallet partial citation; SEC IAPD verification; YMYL content geometry

Accountants / CPAs:

• Median composite: 38-42
• Top quartile: 58
• Top decile: 72
• Common gap: No dominant Pattern A2 directory yet (vertical is under-engineered); weak schema; sparse brand mention frequency

Insurance brokers:

• Median composite: 35-40
• Top quartile: 55
• Top decile: 70
• Common gap: Similar to CPAs — vertical is under-engineered; opportunity asymmetry is high

What do the benchmarks tell us about competitive dynamics?

Three cross-vertical patterns emerge:

Pattern 1: Under-engineered verticals offer asymmetric opportunity. Verticals with low median composite scores (CPAs at 38-42, insurance brokers at 35-40) are systematically under-engineered. Brands that engineer to top-decile (~70-72 score) significantly outperform competitor citation rate. First-mover advantage is real and durable.

Pattern 2: Mature verticals require methodology depth to compete. Verticals with higher median composite (B2B SaaS at 55-60) have brands competing on methodology depth. Top-decile brands aren't winning on basic Pattern A2 directory presence (everyone has it) but on per-platform optimization and original data publication.

Pattern 3: Local services verticals reward systematic execution. Painting contractors, restoration, HVAC, plumbing — median scores cluster 40-55. Top-decile (~75-80) requires systematic execution across all 10 dimensions but the playbook is well-documented. The bottleneck is execution, not strategy.

How should buyers interpret these benchmarks?

The systematic interpretation:

Step 1: Score your own brand. Run the 10-Point Framework audit. Document your composite score and per-dimension breakdown.

Step 2: Compare to your vertical's median. Above median, you're outperforming typical brands in your category. Below median, you're underperforming typical brands.

Step 3: Compare to your vertical's top quartile and top decile. Above top quartile (65-72 depending on vertical), you're competitive. Above top decile (75-82), you're category-leading.

Step 4: Compare per-dimension. Even brands above the composite median may have specific dimensions where they're below typical. The per-dimension pattern shows where to invest.

Step 5: Estimate competitive position trajectory. Are competitors investing in AEO? If yes, expect benchmarks to rise; your score needs to rise faster than the benchmark to maintain position. If no, your AEO investment buys durable advantage.

How will benchmarks change over time?

Two forces shape benchmark trajectory:

Force 1: Industry-wide AEO investment. As more brands invest in AEO, median benchmarks rise. The brand scoring 50/100 today may be median; the brand scoring 50/100 in 2027 may be below median.

Force 2: Methodology evolution. As we update the 10-Point Framework (v0.2 → v0.3 in March 2026), absolute scores may shift. Methodology version is noted on each benchmark.

The quarterly drift reports track benchmark evolution between annual Index publications. Expect typical median scores to rise 5-10 points over each 12-month period as industry-wide AEO investment compounds.

Frequently asked questions

How statistically rigorous are these benchmarks?

Directional, not statistically definitive. 20+ brands across 12 verticals is small for statistical inference. The benchmarks are useful for relative positioning, not for tight confidence intervals around the absolute scores.

Why aren't there benchmarks for X vertical?

The 2026 baseline covers 12 verticals. Verticals not covered haven't accumulated enough audit data yet. As the audit portfolio expands, additional verticals will get benchmark coverage in subsequent Index publications.

What if my brand scored below median?

That's the typical starting point. Most brands haven't invested in AEO. Run the remediation playbook (Pattern A2 directories, schema rollout, NAP cleanup, brand mention engineering) and re-audit after 90 days. Expected lift: 15-25 points for most brands starting below median.

What if my brand scored above top decile?

You're in category-leading territory. Focus shifts from foundational AEO to compounding advantages (original data publication cadence, per-platform optimization depth, brand mention engineering scale). The investment changes from "catch up" to "extend lead."

How often do top-decile thresholds change?

Annually. Industry-wide AEO investment raises median and top-decile thresholds over time. The 2027 Index will likely show top-decile thresholds 5-10 points above 2026 baselines.

---

Companion guides: The 2026 State of AI Visibility Index · AI Citation Drift Report methodology · The 10-Point AI Citation Framework · Brand mention frequency: the #1 predictor.