How to read this report — four terms, no jargon
- ANSWER SLOT
- When someone asks ChatGPT or Perplexity a question, the answer lists its sources — usually 5 to 10 links. Each of those links is one "slot." Slots are the new page one of Google: whoever fills them gets the trust and the click.
- ANSWER-SLOT SHARE
- Of all the slots handed out across your niche's buyer questions, the percentage your website fills. Think market share, but for AI answers. 0% means AI never mentions you when your buyers ask.
- BUYER QUERY
- A question a ready-to-buy customer actually asks — "best X for my situation," "is X worth it," "X vs Y" — not what companies wish people searched for. We measure the questions that end in purchases.
- SLOT HOLDER
- The website currently filling a slot you could occupy. Who they are decides your strategy: small blogs can be outpublished; Reddit threads and big review sites need a different approach entirely (sections 04 and 07).
01 / ANSWER-SLOT SHARE
You hold 9% of your niche's AI answers — the most-cited domain in it.
Across 10 buyer-intent questions asked on ChatGPT (gpt-5.5 with search) and Perplexity, each run 3× and pooled, the engines handed out 388 citation slots. sharerec.com holds 36 of them — more than any other domain in the niche, including every competitor tool and every review site.
Reading: a share above ~10% with an upward trend means the cluster strategy is compounding. For calibration — a domain at 0–2% flat across runs is not "early," it's not registering; our own second product sat there for three months and never moved (that data is in the case study).
02 / COMPETITOR SHARES
Nobody else holds more than 5%.
The niche is fragmented — the single best condition for a content play. No vendor holds more than 5%, and the slots are split across small tools, a few review sites, and community threads. Engines fill slots with whatever looks authoritative, not just vendors.
In your report, each named competitor you give us is measured individually even if they earn zero slots — knowing a rival is absent from AI answers is as actionable as knowing they dominate.
03 / SLOT-HOLDER ANALYSIS, QUERY BY QUERY
Every query, every engine, who actually holds the slots.
| Buyer query | Cited? | Status | Top slot holders (you excluded) |
|---|---|---|---|
| loom vs sharerec | GPT ✓ · PPX ✓ | HELD | reddit, youtube, sourceforge, loom.com |
| loom vs sharerec | GPT ✓ · PPX ✓ | HELD | loom.com ×5, youtube ×3, sourceforge ×3 |
| loom alternative for windows | GPT ✗ · PPX ✓ | PARTIAL | screencapture ×3, youtube ×3, screensnap.pro ×3 |
| best screen recorder for freelancers | GPT ✗ · PPX ✓ | PARTIAL | obsproject ×3, tella ×3, youtube ×3 |
| screen recorder with auto-delete links | GPT ✗ · PPX ✓ | PARTIAL | screenrec ×4, apps.apple ×3, reddit ×3 |
| best screen recorder for teachers | GPT ✗ · PPX ✓ | PARTIAL | screencastify ×6, loom ×5, youtube ×3 |
| screen recorder for customer support | GPT ✗ · PPX ✓ | PARTIAL | zight ×4, screendesk ×4, screenreply ×3 |
| loom alternatives 2026 | GPT ✗ · PPX ✗ | CLOSED | youtube ×5, tella ×4, vidyard ×3 |
| loom alternative for mac | GPT ✗ · PPX ✗ | CLOSED | tella ×5, cleanshot ×3, userguiding ×3 |
| cheap loom alternative | GPT ✗ · PPX ✗ | CLOSED | screenpal ×3, usecarly ×3, puppydog ×3 |
| screen recorder no watermark | GPT ✗ · PPX ✗ | CLOSED | screenrec ×4, jumpshare ×3, youtube ×3 |
The pattern jumps out immediately: Perplexity cites you across five queries; ChatGPT (gpt-5.5) cites you on none but your own brand name. That's the single most valuable line in this report — your AI visibility is almost entirely one engine. The holders you'd displace are mostly beatable indie tools (screensnap, screenpal, zight); the real work is getting ChatGPT to start citing the pages Perplexity already trusts.
04 / THE WHERE-YOU-CAN-WIN MAP
One held. Five Perplexity-only. Four closed.
Defend: loom vs sharerec
The only query both engines cite you on — and it's your own brand name. Keep it current, but understand what it means: outside of people already searching for you, ChatGPT does not surface you at all.
Close the ChatGPT gap: windows · freelancers · auto-delete · teachers · customer support
On all five, Perplexity cites you and ChatGPT does not. This is the highest-leverage finding in the report: the pages already exist and one major engine trusts them — the work is ChatGPT-specific (freshness, structured facts, the cluster signals gpt-5.5 weighs). Exception: customer support, where Reddit sits in the slots — pair the page with presence in the cited threads.
Reconsider: loom alternatives 2026 · mac · cheap · no-watermark
Neither engine cites you. Held by 15-tool mega-roundups, YouTube, and entrenched indie tools (Tella, ScreenPal, ScreenRec). The head term especially is a classic GEO money-waster — your narrower pages capture the same demand at higher intent. Don't force these.
05 / PRIORITIZED HIT-LIST
What to publish next, in order.
Ranked by (open slots) × (beatable holders) × (buyer intent). For this sample: the flip queue plus the nearest adjacent intents with no strong holder.
06 / WHY YOUR PAGE ISN'T CITED — TEARDOWN
Case: "loom alternatives 2026" — your page vs. the cited ones.
You have a page squarely on this query. Both engines skipped it in this run. Side-by-side with the pages they did cite (clickup.com, ossalt.com, saascompared.com):
Your page
- Covers 5 tools — engines treating a head term want survey breadth
- Vendor-owned: engines discount self-interested roundups for head terms (they cite you freely on narrower intents)
- Competes with your own 12 narrower "alternative" pages for the same query family
The cited pages
- 10–20 tools per page, structured comparison tables throughout
- Third-party or open-source-curator framing reads as neutral
- Single authoritative page per domain for the whole head query
Verdict: this is not a page to fix — it's a query to deprioritize. The same "vendor discount" that hurts you on the head term doesn't apply on specific intents, where you're the most-cited domain in the niche. That asymmetry is the whole strategy.
07 / THE RECOMMENDED PLAY
Content play — with one community assist.
VERDICT: CONTENT-WINNABLE NICHE · CONTINUE COMPOUNDING
Your slots are held almost entirely by indie blogs and small tools — the beatable kind. No review-site oligopoly, no funded-incumbent wall. The 90-day path:
If this audit had found Reddit + G2 holding your slots ×3 deep across most queries, this section would prescribe the community or listings play instead — and would tell you not to buy articles from anyone, including us.
Method & honesty notes. 10 buyer-intent queries × ChatGPT (gpt-5.5 + web search) and Perplexity (sonar), each query run 3× and pooled, on 2026-07-30; every cited URL logged and counted as one slot. Raw JSON attached with your report. Engines disagree on the same page ~36% of the time — ask the same question twice and you'll often get different sources, like two librarians recommending different books on the same topic. That's exactly why every query here is run three times and averaged rather than sampled once, why verdicts lean on multi-run trend, and why monthly tracking exists ($149/mo). We never promise specific citations or that a specific page will be picked: engines chose a different page of ours than the exact-match one in half of all citation events. What compounds is the cluster's share — your slice of the whole shelf, not any one spot on it.
This sample is our own product. Yours would read the same way — about your niche.
Get your audit — $30048-hour delivery · raw data included · read the case study