The ERA Scorecard: our own AI visibility, published
Most agencies that sell AI visibility never publish their own. This page does. Every week we run a fixed set of buyer-intent prompts against ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Grok, and record whether Smart Money Media is mentioned — wins, misses, and the competitors that surface instead.
This is the same measurement we run for clients, pointed at ourselves. Numbers below are pulled live from our tracking database — not curated screenshots.
Current scorecard
| Engine | Responses | Mentions | Mention rate | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini (Google) | 14 | 2 | 14.3% | 4.0–39.9% |
| Grok (xAI) | 14 | 2 | 14.3% | 4.0–39.9% |
| Perplexity | 14 | 2 | 14.3% | 4.0–39.9% |
| ChatGPT (OpenAI) | 16 | 2 | 12.5% | 3.5–36.0% |
Tracking window: August 4, 2026 – August 25, 2026. Page data generated .
Who the engines name instead
- edelman · 11
- weber shandwick · 7
- 5wpr · 5
- walker sands · 3
- prnewswire · 3
- businesswire · 3
- prowly · 2
- prweb · 2
- fleishmanhillard · 1
- walkersands · 1
- einpresswire · 1
Most-cited domains in these answers
- support.google.com · 17
- reddit.com · 13
- linkedin.com · 10
- youtube.com · 8
- smartmoneymedia.org · 8
- help.openai.com · 6
- reverbico.com · 4
- f6s.com · 4
- forbes.com · 4
- openpr.com · 4
- contently.com · 4
- developers.google.com · 3
How this is measured
- A fixed set of buyer-intent prompts (the kind a prospect would actually type) runs on a weekly schedule against each engine's API with no brand priming in the system prompt.
- Each response is scored with word-boundary matching on "Smart Money Media" and its variants, and competitor names are extracted from the same text.
- Runs that error out are excluded rather than counted as misses, so the denominator is successful responses only.
- Mention rates carry Wilson 95% confidence intervals; at low run counts those intervals are wide, and we show them rather than hide them.
Limitations
This is a small, ongoing tracking panel — not a large-sample study. Sample sizes per engine are modest, engine model versions change without notice, API responses can differ from what a logged-in consumer sees in the chat UI, and results are specific to our prompt set. Treat every number as directional. For a larger designed study, see The Reference Authority Report.
Why we publish our misses
Engineering Reference Authority is a long game: engines cite what they have absorbed, and absorption lags publication. Showing the gap while we close it is more useful to a buyer than a screenshot of a single lucky answer — and it is the same honest baseline we give clients on day one.
Score your own brand — freePress-ready citation kit
This study is licensed CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, or re-run it — attribution to Smart Money Media and a link back to the study is all we ask. Everything below is copy-and-paste ready.
Pull-quote-ready findings
- Self-published measurement
“Smart Money Media publishes a live scorecard of its own AI visibility — running a fixed set of buyer-intent prompts weekly against ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Grok and reporting every miss alongside every mention.”
- Why misses are published
“Engines cite what they have already absorbed, so absorption lags publication. Showing the gap while it closes is more useful to a buyer than a screenshot of one lucky answer.”
- Method
“Each response is scored with word-boundary brand matching, errored runs are excluded from the denominator, and mention rates are reported with Wilson 95% confidence intervals.”
Attribution & citation
According to The ERA Scorecard: Smart Money Media's own AI visibility, original research published by Smart Money Media (https://smartmoneymedia.org/research/era-scorecard).Smart Money Media. (2026). The ERA Scorecard: Smart Money Media's own AI visibility. Smart Money Media. https://smartmoneymedia.org/research/era-scorecard<p>Source: <a href="https://smartmoneymedia.org/research/era-scorecard">The ERA Scorecard: Smart Money Media's own AI visibility</a> — Smart Money Media</p>