The state of AEO in 2026: Claude is not ChatGPT
Across roughly 35,000 URLs associated with 400 queries, 79.2% of Claude's cited URLs also appeared in Brave's top 10.
Claude's first decision is whether to search
We enabled web search on both models and tested prompts that ranged from current product recommendations to basic explainers. Claude searched 36.6 percent of the time. For the other 63.4 percent, any search optimization work was outside the path because the model answered without retrieving the web.
Claude searched for a little over one-third of tested prompts
Observed routing with web search enabled.
- Invoked web search
- 36.6%
- Answered without web search
- 63.4%
Source: Profound Claude search-trigger analysis
The language of the prompt changed the route. Terms such as "best," "near me," and a current year tended to trigger retrieval. Basic "what is" and "how does" prompts were more likely to stay inside the model, depending on the subject and freshness needed. Search invocation is the first gate, and that gate changes by prompt class.
When Claude searches, its citations closely match Brave
Across roughly 35,000 URLs associated with 400 tested queries, 79.2 percent of Claude's cited URLs also appeared within Brave positions one through ten. This is a strong observed match, not proof that Brave directly caused Claude's source selection.
Nearly four in five Claude citations also appeared in Brave's top 10
Share of Claude citations by whether the source ranked in Brave positions 1 through 10.
- Also in Brave positions 1–10
- 79.2%
- Outside Brave's top 10
- 20.8%
Source: Profound comparison of Claude citations with Brave results
Claude gives us a route we can inspect. Check whether the prompt triggers search, inspect the fanout, then run those strings through Brave. The observed overlap makes Brave useful for diagnosis, while the missing retrieval logs keep the causal path unresolved.
Claude's source selection looks different from ChatGPT because the retrieval path is different before either model writes a sentence.
Claude looked more like Google, but the engines barely looked alike
Claude's cited domains overlapped 64 percent with Google's top 50 results. ChatGPT's overlap was 37 percent. Against Google's top 10, the reported figures were 34 percent and 21 percent. In a separate comparison covering more than 600 queries, Claude and ChatGPT shared only 8 percent of citation domains on average.
Source overlap depends on which two systems you compare
Pairwise domain overlap across Claude, ChatGPT, and Google's top 50.
- Claude citation domains overlapping Google's top 5064%Domain overlap with Google's first 50 results.
- ChatGPT citation domains overlapping Google's top 5037%Domain overlap with Google's first 50 results.
- Claude and ChatGPT domain overlap8%Average overlap between the two answer engines.
Source: Profound citation and search-result comparison
There is no universal AEO result page hiding behind the interfaces. A page can be visible to Claude through Brave, visible to ChatGPT through a different fanout, and absent from another engine that never searched for that prompt.
The source mix gives each engine a different voice
Claude cited listicles in 36.4 percent of the classified set, compared with 19.7 percent for ChatGPT. ChatGPT used forums and user-generated content in 15.8 percent. Claude used them in 0.9 percent, a gap of more than seventeen times.
Claude favored listicles while ChatGPT used far more forum content
Share of citations across six selected content categories.
- Listicles36.4%19.7%
- Brand product pages17.6%21.2%
- Blogs and opinion13.2%7.2%
- News8.4%11%
- Forums and UGC0.9%15.8%
- Wikipedia0.6%2.8%
Source: Profound content-type classification
The listicle finding fits the Brave dependency. Search results often reward pages that gather options under a current, query-shaped title. ChatGPT's larger forum share produces a different evidence base, with more first-person experience and disagreement.
Claude's fanout was predictable enough to plan against
The same query strings appeared in Claude's fanout roughly 65 percent of the time. It added "2026" or "2025" to 94 percent of fanouts, compared with 17 percent for ChatGPT. Adding the year to a title made it 17 percent more similar to the queries Claude generated in the measured set.
Claude put the year into almost every fanout
Share of generated searches containing a year, plus two related fanout findings.
- Fanouts containing a year94%17%
- ~65%
- Claude fanout strings repeated across runs
- +17%
- Query similarity after adding the year
Measured alignment with Claude's generated search strings.
Source: Profound query-fanout analysis
Use a year when the answer actually changes with time, then update the evidence. Claude's behavior rewards recency language because it generates recency-shaped searches.
ChatGPT changed where links and ads appeared
In May 2026, we also saw a sharp change in ChatGPT referral traffic. It rose 60 percent overnight in the observed dataset and settled at roughly 1.6 times the prior global level. One in four clicks landed on a homepage. Brands were being hyperlinked more often inside answers, which gave homepages a role that earlier citation studies rarely showed.
Ads were moving into the same conversation. The observed product used prompt context to match ad titles and descriptions, with roughly one ad per minute and one per conversation in the tested experience. I expect placements to move deeper into threads as inventory grows, with tighter matching to the conversation.
Google AI Mode has its own two-route system
Google AI Mode can answer from Google's first-party place and product systems or search third-party pages. A prompt such as "brunch near me" can stay close to Google's own data. A prompt asking whether a new phone is worth buying needs evidence from outside pages.
That split changes the work. Local and inventory questions depend on complete entity data. Evaluative questions depend on clear third-party sentences that name the brand, product, place, and claim without relying on a pronoun two paragraphs away.
My first step is to identify whether the engine searches, then trace the index, fanout, and source type for that prompt. Claude and ChatGPT share only 8 percent of citation domains on average, so one proxy metric cannot tell you where a page stands.
Study notes
- Dataset
- Published analyses cover prompt routing, citation and search-result overlap, citation content types, repeated query fanouts, ChatGPT referral traffic, and observed ads.
- Collection window
- ChatGPT referral-traffic slides compare May 7 and May 22, 2026.
- Engines and products
- Claude, ChatGPT, Brave Search, Google Search, Google AI Mode
- Sample
- The prompt set ranged from current product recommendations to basic explainers, with web search enabled for Claude and ChatGPT.
- Source-overlap figures are domain-level; content-type figures come from a classified citation set.
- The Brave comparison covered roughly 35,000 URLs associated with 400 tested queries.
- The Claude-versus-ChatGPT domain-overlap comparison covered more than 600 queries.
- Analysis
- Observed search invocation; matched Claude citations to Brave positions 1–10; compared pairwise domain overlap, citation content types, repeated fanout strings, and year usage.
- Separately observed ChatGPT referral traffic and ad placement.
- Contributors
- Josh Blyskal, author and presenter
- Jasman Singh, research lead
- Access
- Limitations
- The prompt-routing, citation, referral, and ad analyses use different units; the deck does not present them as one common sample.
- Claude's 36.6% search rate reflects the tested mix of recommendations and basic explainers.
- Search-result overlap is observational and does not by itself establish a direct causal retrieval dependency.
- Details not published
- The exact routing denominator, per-engine citation counts, overlap formula, retrieval-analysis dates, full sampling and labeling procedures, and raw-data access are not public.
Original research
- 1.The State of AEO 2026
Speaker Deck
- 2.Zero Click New York presentation
Profound
- 3.
- 4.
Questions about the research? Email Josh.