PowerChord
Names 4 answer engines: Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity.
Read 12 September 2026 · powerchord.com/ai-search-visibility
The scores
| Criterion | Score | Weighted of its weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Named engine coverage | 4 / 5 | 20 / 25 | |
| Measurement method shown | 4 / 5 | 16 / 20 | |
| Citation change over time | 1 / 5 | 2 / 10 | |
| Entity and schema competence | 4 / 5 | 24 / 30 | |
| Falsifiability | 2 / 5 | 6 / 15 |
What the page actually says
- Engines
- Four named consumer engines, treated as distinct surfaces throughout.
- Method
- Reports which prompts return the brand, share of voice against local competitors, and the entity signals behind each citation, monthly.
- Change over time
- A before-and-after demonstration exists on the page, but it is an interactive demo rather than a client result.
- Entity and schema
- NAP and listings correction, review generation, schema, and an explicit entity knowledge graph across locations.
- Falsifiability
- Says plainly that this is not a one-time fix because models change and competitors keep optimising. No stated failure condition.
The check we would run on this one
PowerChord is one of the few here that shows a method, so the useful check is a level deeper than usual. Ask whether the prompt set is fixed in writing before the work starts, whether it stays identical between reports, and whether you can read the raw answers rather than a summary score. A company already publishing this much will have those answers to hand, and the one that matters is the second.
We found nothing on PowerChord's page we would challenge, which is rarer in this set than it ought to be.
Disagree with any of this? The corrections log is where it gets settled, in public, with a date.