Citation corpus
58 of 96
pages cited in one customer's category that did not rank in Google's top 100
Measured on one CueScout account, August 2026. The strongest number we have, and one account is one account.
This is the finding that has closed the most sales calls for us. Take the pages an engine cited in a category, look each one up in Google for the question it was cited for, and a large share of them turn out to rank nowhere. In the account where we first ran it properly, 58 of 96 cited pages had no position in the top 100.
If that holds for your category, then a rank tracker is watching a competition that is only loosely related to the one deciding what the assistant recommends. That is the argument for treating AI visibility as its own problem rather than a column in an SEO tool, and it is also the reason we compute it per account instead of quoting somebody's study at you.
Where it lives: Rank column on Citation Sources, and the overlap summary on Analytics.
The same page can be cited for several questions and rank differently for each, so the lookup is keyed on the pair. One search serves every cited page for that question, which means the cost scales with your question library rather than with the size of your corpus.
We look a hundred results deep and then stop. Past that, "does not rank" and "ranks at 140" are the same fact to a buyer. A zero is the most interesting row on the surface, not a missing value.
Reddit and Stack Exchange threads often appear only in the search engine's discussions cluster, which is not ranked against the organic list. Those are flagged as such instead of being reported as unranked, which would be the single most misleading row we could print.
Google rank badges on threads. On every plan. Growth and Agency also weight ranked threads higher in scoring.
| Basic | Growth | Agency |
|---|---|---|
| Included | Included | Included |
Read the full plan comparison.
SE Ranking looked at 465,823 AI Overview citations in December 2025 and found 36% of AI-cited URLs in Google's top 10, 54% in the top 20, and 74% in the top 100. That was German-language health queries, so treat it as evidence the gap exists rather than as your number.
No. Roughly three quarters of cited URLs in that study were somewhere in the top 100, which is not nothing. It means ranking is neither necessary nor sufficient, and that the pages you would never have audited are doing a lot of the work.
Brave Search, including its discussions cluster. It is the provider whose API returns forum results as a separate block, which is what makes the honest handling above possible.
Citation Sources
Every URL the engines cited in your category, classified, checked for whether you appear in it, and sorted by what you can actually win.
Citation corpusDomain leaderboard
Citation share per host, so you can see the five domains producing half your category's answers instead of scrolling forty URLs.
Reporting and agencyOpportunity Report
The whole picture for one product on one page, shareable with a prospect or a client who has no login.
Start with the free visibility check to see whether the engines name you today, then run the scan that shows which pages they used instead.