AI meeting assistants: AI search visibility ranking (2026)
How AI search engines rank ai meeting assistants by visibility and citations. 20 brands measured monthly across Google AI Mode: which brands the AI names in answers, which domains it cites as sources, and how the leaders compare. AI tools used to record meetings, transcribe conversations, summarize action items, surface insights, and automate follow-up after calls. Composite score: 70% visibility (% of AI answers naming the brand) + 30% citation rate (% citing the brand's domain). Full methodology →
Download this ranking as a PDF
We'll email it to you. One-off send — no list, no follow-up, no surprise marketing.
When AI engines like ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity answer questions about AI meeting assistants, Fireflies comes up most often by a wide margin, appearing in 50% of relevant AI responses. Avoma and tl;dv round out the top three, but neither approaches Fireflies' visibility. If you ask an AI assistant to recommend a meeting recorder today, Fireflies is the name you are most likely to get back.
The rankings reflect which sources AI engines trust most when forming answers. The top cited domains include youtube.com, zapier.com, and google.com alongside fireflies.ai itself and meetjamie.ai. That mix of video content, integration-focused review writing, and the brands' own sites shows AI engines are pulling heavily from tutorial and comparison content rather than any single authoritative review outlet, meaning brands with broad third-party coverage across formats rank higher.
For a buyer using this page, the most practical signal is third-party validation depth. A brand that appears consistently across independent review sites, tutorial videos, and integration guides carries more weight with AI engines than one with polished owned content alone. Before choosing, check whether the brands you are considering have recent coverage (within the past year) on sites outside their own domain, since that recency and breadth is what keeps a brand visible in AI-generated recommendations.
At a glance
What we observed in this category
Fireflies leads the AI meeting assistants category with a visibility score of 50%, more than double the second-ranked brand Avoma at 25%. The category average visibility sits at just 7.5%, meaning Fireflies operates at roughly 6.7 times the average, a gap that signals concentrated AI attention on a single brand. This level of dominance is atypical and suggests that Google AI Mode has a strong preference for Fireflies when generating responses in this category.
A notable divergence between visibility and citation appears at ranks 3 and 4. Both tl;dv and Krisp hold citation rates of 25%, matching Avoma despite their visibility scores of only 12.5%. Read AI and Spinach present an even sharper inversion, each scoring 0% visibility yet 25% citation, meaning Google AI Mode references them as sources without surfacing them as named brands. Fathom and Otter show the opposite pattern, appearing visibly but receiving zero citations.
Google AI Mode is the top engine for every brand in the dataset, confirming this category is almost entirely shaped by a single engine's editorial logic. The top cited sources include youtube.com, zapier.com, and fellow.ai alongside brand-owned domains like fireflies.ai and avoma.com. The presence of third-party aggregators such as zapier.com and cirrusinsight.com in the citation list suggests AI responses in this category draw on roundup and integration content rather than primary product pages alone.
Movers & shakers since last refresh
Biggest visibility risers
-
Avoma 0% → 25% · rank #2 → #2+25pp
-
Fireflies 38% → 50% · rank #1 → #1+12pp
-
tl;dv 0% → 12% · rank #5 → #3+12pp
Biggest visibility fallers
-
Fathom 25% → 12% · rank #3 → #6-12pp
-
Fellow 12% → 0% · rank #6 → #17-12pp
The ranking
| # | Brand | Visibility | Citation | Top engine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
fireflies.ai
|
50% | 38% | Google AI Mode |
Fireflies leads with 50% visibility and a 46.2 composite score, roughly double Avoma's visibility and more than six times the 7.5% category average. |
||||
| 2 |
avoma.com
|
25% | 25% | Google AI Mode |
Avoma sits at 25% visibility and 25% citation, both exactly matching, but its citation delta fell 50 points period-over-period despite its visibility rising by 25 points. |
||||
| 3 |
tldv.io
|
12% | 25% | Google AI Mode |
tl;dv climbed two rank positions to third while its citation rate of 25% exceeds its 12.5% visibility, indicating it is trusted as a source more than it is named as a brand. |
||||
| 4 |
krisp.ai
|
12% | 25% | Google AI Mode |
Krisp mirrors tl;dv exactly with 12.5% visibility and 25% citation, earning a composite score of 16.2, well above the 11.2% average citation rate for the category. |
||||
| 5 |
grain.com
|
12% | 12% | Google AI Mode |
Grain holds 12.5% visibility and 12.5% citation, both equal and both at the category visibility average, giving it no divergence between named and trusted signals. |
||||
| 6 |
fathom.video
|
12% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 7 |
otter.ai
|
12% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 8 |
supernormal.com
|
12% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 9 |
read.ai
|
0% | 25% | Google AI Mode |
| 10 |
spinach.ai
|
0% | 25% | Google AI Mode |
| 11 |
meetgeek.ai
|
0% | 25% | Google AI Mode |
| 12 |
zoominfo.com
|
0% | 12% | Google AI Mode |
| 13 |
sembly.ai
|
0% | 12% | Google AI Mode |
| 14 |
airgram.io
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 15 |
nyota.ai
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 16 |
tactiq.io
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 17 |
fellow.app
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 18 |
notta.ai
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 19 |
jamie.ai
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 20 |
gong.io
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
Sources AI engines trust in this category
Across the 8 buyer-intent queries we ran on ai meeting assistants, these are the domains Google AI Mode cited most often. If you're not on this list — or if your competitors are — that's a concrete PR / linkbuilding target.
How to read this ranking
Four things worth knowing before you act on the numbers above. These are the same definitions across every industry page — for category-specific observations, see the What we observed section above (where available) and the per-brand insights inline in the ranking.
Visibility = being named
A brand's visibility % is the share of AI answers that mention it by name in the response prose. This is who AI engines actively recommend to the buyer. More on visibility →
Citation rate = being trusted
Citation rate is the share of AI answers that include the brand's domain as a clickable source link. This is what the AI treats as authoritative evidence, different from being named. More on citation rate →
Top engine differs by brand
The "top engine" column shows which AI surface each brand performs best on. Big gaps between a brand's score across engines usually points to specific content or schema gaps. How AI engines pick sources →
Rankings move month to month
AI engines re-crawl and re-rank on shorter cycles than classical search. We re-audit every brand on this list at least every 30 days and refresh this page automatically. How AI search ranking works →
Get your own ai meeting assistants brand audited
The brands above were curated from public market-leader lists. Want the same measurement against your own brand — including the queries you appear on, which competitors get named instead, and a prioritised fix list? Run a free preview.
Frequently asked about ai meeting assistants AI visibility
Who leads AI visibility in the AI meeting assistants category?
Fireflies leads with 50% visibility and a composite score of 46.2, more than double the second-ranked brand Avoma at 25%. The category average visibility is just 7.5%, making Fireflies an outlier by a wide margin.
Which brands are cited but not prominently named in AI responses?
Read AI and Spinach each hold 0% visibility but 25% citation, meaning Google AI Mode uses them as reference sources without surfacing them as recommended brands.
What sources does AI cite most for AI meeting assistant research?
The top cited sources include youtube.com, zapier.com, and google.com alongside brand-owned domains such as fireflies.ai and avoma.com, suggesting AI responses blend first-party and third-party aggregator content.
Which brands have lost the most AI visibility recently?
Fellow dropped 11 rank positions from rank 6 to rank 17, with visibility falling from 12.5% to 0%. Fathom dropped 3 positions from rank 3 to rank 6, with visibility declining from 25% to 12.5%.
Which engine dominates AI visibility for meeting assistants?
Google AI Mode is the top engine for all 10 ranked brands in the dataset, indicating this category's AI visibility landscape is almost entirely determined by a single engine.
Is high visibility always paired with high citation in this category?
No. Fathom and Otter each have 12.5% visibility but 0% citation, while tl;dv and Krisp have the same 12.5% visibility yet 25% citation each, showing citation and visibility can diverge significantly.