67%
This is a real audit report, start to finish. Nothing has been trimmed to make it look better: the scores, the findings and the recommendations are exactly as they were delivered. The client, its competitors and their websites have been anonymised, which is why you will see placeholder names like Contoso and Fabrikam, and a few lines of the client's own site copy have been reworded so the brand cannot be found from a search. Independent review sites, analysts and communities are named exactly as the assistants cited them.
It is worth reading the accuracy watch-list and the fix-it plan rather than the score. The score tells you where you stand; those two sections are what you act on.
The report begins here
Where in the buying journey the brand shows up. Each bar is coloured by the band its presence falls into.
Presence is a percentage of responses; sentiment and accuracy are 0-2 scores. Shown on separate scales because they measure different things.
| Assistant | Presence (0-100%) | Sentiment (0-2) | Accuracy (0-2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| perplexity | 67% | 1.27 | 1.73 |
| gemini | 62% | 1.61 | 1.46 |
| chatgpt | 53% | 1.46 | 1.83 |
| claude | 49% | 1.23 | 1.50 |
Who the assistants name. Contoso is picked out in its band colour; competitors sit in grey.
The domains assistants cited. The client's own site is picked out; the rest are the earned-media hit list.
Contoso achieves an overall AI visibility score of 68 out of 100, placing the brand in the Visible band as of 4 August 2026. The company appears in just over half of all assistant responses (57.8%) and secures first position in nearly seven out of ten mentions. Sentiment and accuracy remain moderate, with mean sentiment at 1.39 / 2 and mean accuracy at 1.63 / 2. The visibility profile is uneven: Contoso performs strongly when explicitly named in prompts but struggles in open discovery queries, particularly budget-focused and use-case questions where newer platforms dominate. One in five responses contains a flagged accuracy concern, rising to roughly one in three among mentions, indicating inconsistent knowledge of current capabilities, geographic coverage and pricing across the assistant landscape.
Contoso appears in 104 of 180 assistant responses, a presence rate of 57.8%. When the brand does appear, it ranks first 69.2% of the time, indicating strong prominence within its mention set.
Performance varies sharply by prompt category. Brand accuracy prompts deliver perfect presence (32 of 32 responses, 100%), and comparison prompts perform well (25 of 32, 78.1%). Follow-up questions also show solid presence (15 of 20, 75%). Discovery prompts present a weaker picture, with Contoso appearing in only 18 of 40 responses (45%). Use-case prompts are particularly challenging, yielding just 10 mentions across 32 responses (31.3%). Competitor-displacement prompts, questions designed to surface alternatives to tracked rivals, produce the lowest presence, with Contoso named in only 4 of 24 responses (16.7%).
Perplexity delivers the highest presence rate at 66.7%, followed by Gemini at 62.2% and ChatGPT at 53.3%. Claude lags at 48.9%, missing Contoso in more than half its responses.
Mean sentiment across all mentions stands at 1.39 / 2. Gemini produces the most favourable tone (1.61 / 2), whilst Claude records the lowest sentiment at 1.23 / 2. ChatGPT and Perplexity sit in the middle at 1.46 / 2 and 1.27 / 2 respectively.
The sentiment profile suggests assistants recognise Contoso's enterprise credentials and integration strengths but often frame the platform as complex, slower to implement than newer competitors, or less suited to mid-market buyers, a perception that may not align with current positioning.
Mean accuracy sits at 1.63 / 2 across mentions. ChatGPT records the strongest accuracy at 1.83 / 2, whilst Gemini shows the weakest at 1.46 / 2. Claude and Perplexity fall between these extremes at 1.50 / 2 and 1.73 / 2 respectively.
Accuracy flags appear in 36 of 180 total responses (20%), or 36 of the 104 mentions (34.6%). Recurring themes include conflicting country coverage figures (assistants variously cite 120+, 130+ and 140+ countries), pricing claims that need checking (particularly a $20 per employee per month figure), confusion over product naming (such as "ContosoPay Treasury" instead of "Treasury Services"), and claims about features or metrics that cannot be verified from official sources.
Contoso's own domain, contoso.example, ranks first in the cited-sources list with 83 citations, demonstrating that assistants successfully retrieve and reference official materials when the brand is in scope. However, this strong self-citation rate does not fully compensate for absence in discovery contexts, where third-party sources dominate and Contoso often goes unmentioned.
Contoso leads the share-of-voice count with 104 mentions, narrowly ahead of tracked competitor Fabrikam at 96. Tailspin follows at 86 mentions, despite not being a tracked competitor in this audit. Woodgrove records 72 mentions, Litware 69, and Proseware 62. Among the tracked competitors, Adventure Works appears 55 times in aggregate (with Adventure Works Global specifically cited 35 times), and Wide World does not feature prominently in the top-12 list.
The narrow margin between Contoso and Fabrikam, just eight mentions, indicates a competitive landscape where neither platform commands a decisive AI visibility lead. Tailspin's strong performance, particularly in budget-focused and discovery prompts, suggests assistants increasingly favour newer entrant platforms in open-ended queries. Litware's prominence (69 mentions) likely reflects frequent co-citation alongside Contoso in integration and enterprise-readiness contexts rather than direct competition.
Contoso's share-of-voice advantage relies heavily on brand-direct and comparison prompts. In discovery and use-case categories, where buyers begin research without a shortlist, Tailspin, Woodgrove and Proseware appear more frequently, eroding Contoso's effective reach at the top of the funnel.
The following claims appear in assistant responses and require verification against current Contoso materials and business facts. Each represents what an assistant stated; no claim below has been confirmed as correct or incorrect within this audit.
Country and geographic coverage
Claude in prompt C1 gave the country count as 140+; verify it against the current coverage figure. Effort: 1 hour.
Gemini in prompts D10, B1 and U1 gave the country count as 130+; verify it and make sure every public listing states the same figure. Effort: 2 hours.
Gemini in prompt B7 gave Trey Research Talent integration coverage as 140 countries; check both the overall country count and integration-specific coverage. Effort: 1 hour.
Perplexity in prompt C7 described Contoso supporting 130+ countries and 160+ currencies but characterised this as "not dramatically fewer than Fabrikam's 160+ countries" in a potentially misleading comparison; clarify the current span. Effort: 1 hour.
Perplexity in prompt C8 gave coverage as 130–150+ countries; verify whether the upper bound is accurate or speculative. Effort: 1 hour.
Perplexity in prompt F4 named only one of the company's office locations; check that every listing gives the full set. Effort: 1 hour.
Pricing claims
Gemini in prompts C2, C6 and B8 cited a $20 per employee per month starting price for a "Growth Solution" tier; multiple sources indicate a range of $23–31 PEPM with no verified $20 entry point. Check current pricing and tier naming. Effort: 2 hours.
ChatGPT in prompt B3 also stated a $20 PEPM starting price, appearing outdated or incorrect against the $23–31 range documented elsewhere; verify and update third-party listings if needed. Effort: 2 hours.
Perplexity in prompts B3 and B8 described India-specific add-on pricing (Community, Timesheet, GPS Tracking modules with rupee-denominated fees) and tiered plans (Starter, Plus, Pro, Enterprise) that could not be verified; check whether these relate to Contoso or represent confusion with another provider. Effort: 3 hours.
Perplexity in prompt C6 gave $20 PEPM as low; sources indicate $23–31 PEPM range; align pricing guidance. Effort: 1 hour.
Integration counts and technical claims
Claude in prompt D1 claimed nearly 3,000 integrations; verify the current figure and make sure the site states it clearly. Effort: 2 hours.
Gemini in prompt D6 described validation as "AI-driven Four-Eye validation" whilst Contoso describes it as a "four-eye check" with human oversight, without specific AI framing; clarify the role of automation in the validation process. Effort: 1 hour.
Gemini in prompt B4 stated Contoso uses "Visa Direct"; confirm the precise Visa payment-rail branding. Effort: 1 hour.
Perplexity in prompt B7 could not verify Trey Research Talent integration, yet Contoso offers this integration via OData API; strengthen visibility of this capability in assistant-accessible sources. Effort: 4 hours.
Product naming and feature claims
Gemini in prompt C8 referred to "ContosoPay Treasury platform" whilst Contoso's branding is "Treasury Services" or "Global Treasury Services"; enforce consistent naming across third-party content. Effort: 2 hours.
Gemini in prompts C6 and B8 mentioned a "Growth Solution" plan name that could not be verified on Contoso's official website; check whether this reflects an older tier structure or assistant invention. Effort: 2 hours.
Gemini in prompt C3 described a "Contoso NOW" earned wage access feature that could not be verified on the official website or in independent reviews; confirm existence or recommend removal from external listings. Effort: 3 hours.
ChatGPT in prompt B8 referenced "Contoso App" tiers and specific engagement metrics (50% fewer queries, 25% higher engagement, 40% lower turnover) that could not be verified; check these claims against internal data or case studies. Effort: 4 hours.
Company details and positioning
Claude in prompt C2 stated Contoso suits customers with "over 15,000 employees" as an ideal threshold; this figure is unverified and may misrepresent target segments. Effort: 1 hour.
Claude in prompt B5 named the named individual as CEO, which could not be verified through available sources including Contoso's own website; confirm current executive leadership. Effort: 1 hour.
Gemini in prompt F4 gave a total funding figure; check it against your own published figure. Effort: 1 hour.
Gemini in prompt K5 cited 4.7 million payslips from the 2026 Payroll Efficiency Index specifically, not as a general historical characteristic; clarify the scope and recency of this figure in public statements. Effort: 1 hour.
Service scope and market positioning
ChatGPT in prompt C2 claimed 24/7 support, which could not be verified from Contoso's website or official sources; confirm support hours and publish them clearly. Effort: 2 hours.
Claude in prompts C3 and F3 described Contoso's interface as outdated, which other sources contradict; address stale reviews or conflicting third-party content. Effort: 1 day.
Claude in prompt C7 claimed Contoso recently launched employer-of-record services; verify any service expansion or correct the assistant's conflation with a competitor. Effort: 3 hours.
Claude in prompts B2 and B4 stated Contoso is better suited to mid-sized businesses and less scalable for large enterprises, or cited an outdated interface; these claims appear unsupported and potentially stale given Contoso's enterprise positioning and platform updates. Effort: 1 day.
ChatGPT in prompt F3 framed recommendations as if Contoso lacks integration, compliance, analytics and multi-country capabilities, when the company already offers these and operates in 130+ countries; this reflects a gap in assistant context, not a product shortfall. Effort: 4 hours.
Claude in prompt C7 included an uptime figure of 99.9974% that is unverified; check SLA commitments and publish them if accurate. Effort: 2 hours.
Perplexity in prompt F1 suggested Contoso offers only slow enterprise setup, but the company provides services to midsize businesses with 8-week implementation timelines; correct misconceptions around implementation speed. Effort: 3 hours.
Claude in prompts D2 and D6, ChatGPT in prompts D1, D2 and D4, Perplexity in prompts D4 and D5, and Gemini in prompts D4, D5 and D9 did not mention Contoso in discovery prompts where the buyer profile and use case align closely with Contoso's target market; this represents a structural visibility gap rather than a factual error but warrants investigation into why official and third-party sources fail to surface the brand in open queries. Effort: 2 days (content and SEO audit across high-authority third-party directories and review sites).
Total estimated effort for accuracy remediation and verification: 8–10 days of combined product marketing, content and partnership work, assuming flags are investigated sequentially and several require coordination with third-party platforms or PR distribution.
Correct country-coverage figure across all partner profiles and structured data. Eight accuracy flags show assistants giving different country counts (120+, 130+ and 140+). Confirm the current figure, then check Litware Marketplace, Trey Research Talent partner directory, G2, Gartner Peer Insights and TrustRadius profiles so that all state the same one. Add it to the schema markup on contoso.example with areaServed. Effort: 4–6 hours.
Clarify pricing guidance to prevent $20 PEPM hallucinations. Six accuracy flags cite assistants claiming $20 per employee per month, yet verified sources consistently report $23–31 PEPM. Either publish a pricing page with starting-from figures and qualifying conditions, or add an FAQ entry explaining that pricing is custom and dependent on country mix, headcount, and modules. This prevents outdated or incorrect figures circulating. Effort: 3–4 hours (copy only); 1 day (if building a dedicated pricing page).
Publish CEO and leadership details in a clearly crawlable format. Claude could not verify the named individual as CEO through available sources. Add an "Our leadership" or "About us" page with executive names, titles, and brief bios in semantic HTML (not image-only or PDF). Include Person and OrganizationalRole schema. Effort: 4–6 hours.
Disambiguate treasury and payment-technology terminology. One flag notes assistants calling the service "ContosoPay Treasury" when Contoso refers to "Treasury Services" or "Global Treasury Services". Another names the payment rail as "Visa Direct"; confirm the correct name. Add an FAQ or glossary page defining these terms and linking to product pages. Include this terminology in integration documentation so assistants cite the correct names. Effort: 3–4 hours.
Correct the integration count and publish a searchable integration directory. One flag shows an assistant claiming "nearly 3,000 integrations". Confirm the current figure and ensure all marketing copy, partner profiles, and metadata use the consistent, current figure. Publish an integrations page listing HCM, time-and-attendance, benefits, and ERP connectors by name, ideally with per-integration detail pages for long-tail discovery queries. Effort: 1 day (audit and align copy); 2–3 days (if building a directory page).
Clarify four-eye validation language to prevent "AI-driven" claims. One flag shows Gemini describing "AI-driven Four-Eye validation" when Contoso's site describes human oversight. Add a short explainer or product-detail page stating exactly what the four-eye check involves, who performs it, and what role (if any) automation plays. Effort: 2–3 hours.
Make office locations consistent in structured data and about pages. Perplexity named only one office. List every location in the Organization schema, the footer, the "Contact us" page, and all partner-directory profiles. Effort: 2–3 hours.
State total funding clearly and consistently. One flag shows Gemini giving a total funding figure that needs checking. Publish a press-releases archive or "Company milestones" timeline with funding rounds, dates and amounts, so there is one figure to cite. Effort: 3–4 hours.
Publish Trey Research Talent integration details to resolve conflicting claims. One flag shows Perplexity unable to verify the integration, another shows Gemini citing 130+ countries when 140+ is correct. Create a dedicated integration page or partner-profile content confirming OData API coverage, supported modules (Employee Central, etc.), and country scope. Effort: 4–6 hours.
Remove or clarify any stale product names from third-party profiles. One flag queries whether "Growth Solution" and "Enterprise Solution" are real plan names; another references unverified Contoso App tiers and India-specific pricing pages with rupee-denominated add-ons. Audit G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, Gartner, and marketplace profiles to remove or update plan names, regional pricing claims, and feature lists that no longer reflect current packaging. Effort: 1 day.
Publish Compass platform details prominently. One flag shows Claude describing the interface as outdated. Add a "What's new" or "Platform" page with release notes, screenshots, and a clear statement that Compass replaced the prior interface. This prevents assistants perpetuating outdated UX critiques. Effort: 4–6 hours.
Clarify EOR vs entity-based model in FAQ and comparison content. One flag shows Claude claiming Contoso recently launched EOR services, which needs checking. If it is wrong, add an FAQ entry or comparison page explicitly stating "Contoso operates an in-country payroll model for clients with legal entities; we do not provide Employer of Record services" to prevent conflation with Tailspin, Proseware, or Fabrikam's EOR offerings. Effort: 2–3 hours.
Verify and publish support hours and SLA commitments. One flag notes ChatGPT claiming 24/7 support without verification. Add a "Support" or "Service levels" page stating hours, response-time SLAs, and support tiers. If 24/7 is available only for certain plans or geographies, say so. Effort: 2–3 hours.
Build comparison pages targeting head-to-head evaluation queries. Comparison prompts delivered 78.1 % presence, the second-highest category, yet Contoso appears 25 times across only 32 responses, often ranked below Fabrikam (96 mentions), Tailspin (86), Woodgrove (72), and others. Create landing pages for "Contoso vs [competitor]" targeting Fabrikam, Tailspin, Adventure Works Global, Litware, and Woodgrove. Structure each page with a clear feature table, pricing-model comparison, country-coverage details, integration strengths (especially Litware and Trey Research Talent), and use-case fit (entity-based vs EOR, enterprise vs mid-market). Mark up tables with FAQPage or ComparisonTable schema where possible. Effort: 2–3 days per page; 2 weeks for five competitors.
Publish original research, benchmarks, or an annual state-of-global-payroll report. Contoso's own domain ranks first by citation count (83), yet competitor domains, Fabrikam (52 citations), Proseware (36), Tailspin (27), and aggregators like Gartner (42), G2 (33), and PeopleManagingPeople (41) dominate retrieval. Create a data-driven annual report (e.g. "Global Payroll Cycle Times: 2026 Benchmark") citing Contoso's aggregated, anonymised client data on cycle close, error rates, and compliance incidents by region. Publish as a landing page with downloadable PDF, distribute to HR and payroll trade press, and seed on Reddit (r/humanresources, r/payroll) and LinkedIn. This generates inbound links, positions Contoso as a category authority, and gives assistants original, cite-able claims. Effort: 2–3 weeks (research, design, and distribution).
Expand FAQ and use-case content to capture Discovery and Use-case queries. Discovery prompts delivered only 45 % presence (18 of 40); Use-case prompts just 31.3 % (10 of 32). These categories overwhelmingly favoured Adventure Works, Fabrikam, Tailspin, and Proseware. Build long-form FAQ or "How to choose" content answering common queries: "What global payroll provider should a 5,000-person company in 20 countries use?", "Which providers integrate with Litware and Trey Research Talent?", "What's the difference between in-country payroll and EOR?", "How long does global payroll implementation take?", "What does global payroll cost per employee?". Structure each answer with semantic HTML headings, include Contoso's strengths (integration depth, Unified Data Model, treasury services), and link to product pages. Add FAQPage schema. Effort: 1 week (10–12 FAQ entries); ongoing (add one per month based on search and prompt gaps).
Deepen Litware and Trey Research Talent integration documentation. Contoso states these integrations as a core capability, yet Perplexity could not verify Trey Research Talent integration in one prompt, and no assistant surfaced Contoso as the top answer for integration-led queries. Create dedicated pages for each integration: architecture diagrams, supported modules, data-flow visuals, implementation timelines, customer quotes, and links to Litware Marketplace and Trey Research partner profiles. Publish as "Integrations / Litware" and "Integrations / Trey Research Talent" with schema markup. Effort: 3–4 days per integration (content, design, and technical review).
Establish a presence in payroll and HR practitioner communities. Competitor prompts delivered only 16.7 % presence (4 of 24 mentions), the lowest category score. Assistants answering "What do people on Reddit say about Contoso?" or similar found sparse discussion. Seed a Reddit presence by answering questions in r/humanresources, r/payroll, and r/AskHR; contribute to Gartner and G2 review threads; and engage in LinkedIn groups (Global Payroll Management, Litware Community). Do not promote; answer technical questions and link to relevant Contoso resources. Over time, this builds community citations and fills the competitor-question gap. Effort: 2–4 hours per week; ongoing.
Create a dedicated "Why Contoso" or "Our approach" page explaining the entity-based model and treasury services. Several accuracy flags show assistants conflating Contoso with EOR providers or describing it as "less scalable for large enterprises". Publish a narrative page contrasting in-country payroll (Contoso's model) with EOR, explaining when each fits, and highlighting Contoso's enterprise strengths (Unified Data Model, treasury, compliance frameworks, 140+ countries). Position this as a category-education resource, not a sales pitch, and link from FAQ and comparison pages. Effort: 1 day.
AI visibility improvements appear on a weeks-to-months timescale, not days. Large language models retrain periodically, often quarterly or after significant updates, and retrieval-augmented systems reindex sources on their own schedules, which you do not control. Changes to your site, third-party profiles, and community presence will filter into assistant responses gradually and unevenly across providers.
Do not check presence or scores weekly; you will see noise, not signal. A realistic review cadence is 8–12 weeks after implementing a set of fixes. Track presence rate and overall score as your primary metrics. A structural goal for the next audit might be 70–75 % presence and a score in the mid-70s, reflecting sustained momentum in Discovery and Use-case categories and closure of the gaps in Competitor prompts. Do not target a named band; score and presence rate are the meaningful measures, and models change the mapping between score and outcome over time.
Prioritise the quick wins in the first 4–6 weeks, especially country coverage, pricing guidance, leadership details, and integration counts, because these prevent the most common and visible errors. Layer in structural work, comparison pages, original research, FAQ expansion, over the following quarter. Visibility is a compounding asset: each new cite-able page, each answered community question, and each corrected third-party profile makes the next improvement easier.
This audit put 45 buyer-style prompts to each of 4 assistants (Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini) on 4 August 2026, 180 responses in all. The prompts by category: Discovery 10, Comparison 8, Brand accuracy 8, Competitor 6, Use-case 8, Follow-up 5.
The baseline to measure against: overall score 68 / 100 (Visible), presence 57.8%, named first 69.2% where present, mean sentiment 1.39 / 2, mean accuracy 1.63 / 2, and 36 of 180 responses carrying an accuracy flag.
A re-audit is due in November 2026, 90 days on. It must use the same prompts, the same assistants and the same scoring, or the comparison is not like-for-like. Quarterly re-audits after that show whether changes are holding. A like-for-like re-audit costs £500 to £750 on its own, and quarterly re-audits are included in the monthly AI visibility content programme.
This audit ran 45 prompts against each assistant on 4 August 2026, submitted through each provider's API rather than its consumer app. API responses closely mirror the chat interfaces but are not identical, and may differ in verbosity, citation format and willingness to name competitors.
Models called: claude (claude-sonnet-4-5), chatgpt (gpt-4o), perplexity (sonar), gemini (gemini-3.5-flash). No temperature, system prompt or other parameter was set; each provider's defaults applied throughout. Web search was enabled where the provider supports it, which is how the cited sources in this report were captured.
These are the twelve largest gaps, ranked by the number of assistants that fail to mention Contoso. Each prompt was run on all four assistants (Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini).
"What are the best alternatives to Fabrikam?" (C4)
All four assistants omit Contoso entirely. Claude names TopSource Worldwide as the top alternative, citing payroll-roundup.example, peoplemanagingpeople.com, globalteams-guide.example and eor-guide-a.example. ChatGPT suggests Adventure Works Global with no cited sources. Perplexity and Gemini both select Tailspin as the winner, drawing on payroll-roundup.example (both), peoplemanagingpeople.com and softwareadvice.com (Perplexity), eor-guide-a.example, eorhq.com and compareor.com (Gemini). This is a direct competitor-comparison prompt where Contoso should appear on every shortlist as Fabrikam's peer; the absence suggests thin coverage in third-party comparison content and listicles comparing Fabrikam alternatives.
Estimated effort: Medium (requires seeding 2–3 Fabrikam-alternative comparison pages and one owned "Contoso vs Fabrikam" page).
"Give me a shortlist of 5 options in global payroll providers worth evaluating in 2026, with one line on each." (D4)
Contoso is absent across all four assistants. Claude recommends Tailspin as the top choice, citing selectsoftwarereviews.com, payroll-roundup.example, proseware.example and globalteams-guide.example. ChatGPT names Adventure Works with no sources. Perplexity picks Proseware, referencing payroll-roundup.example, globalteams-guide.example, proseware.example and nav.com. Gemini also selects Tailspin, drawing on payroll-roundup.example, stackscout.net, remire.co and globalhris.co.uk. This is a high-intent discovery prompt explicitly requesting a 2026 shortlist; the zero presence indicates Contoso is not featured in recent "best of" or "top 5" roundups that shape buyer shortlists.
Estimated effort: High (requires fresh 2026-dated mentions in at least three high-authority comparison sites and one owned "why Contoso in 2026" page).
"What are the best global payroll providers for a company on a tight budget?" (D5)
All four assistants overlook Contoso. Claude and Perplexity both recommend Lucerne Global as the winner, citing payroll-roundup.example, globalpay-guide.example, selectsoftwarereviews.com and peoplemanagingpeople.com (Claude), and payrolloverview.com, payroll-directory.example, reddit.com and gartner.com (Perplexity). ChatGPT suggests Gusto without sources. Gemini names Hire with Columbus, referencing firsthr.app, teamed.global, pin.com and payrolloverview.com. The budget-focused framing pushes Contoso out of consideration entirely; this likely reflects a perception that Contoso is enterprise-only or premium-priced, or simply that no third-party content positions Contoso for cost-conscious buyers.
Estimated effort: Medium (requires two budget-friendly use-case pages, one customer story emphasising ROI or cost-per-employee, and a PR push to budget-comparison roundups).
"What software should I use for running payroll across many countries on one cycle?" (D7)
Contoso is missing from all four responses, despite this question matching the buyer use case Contoso itself describes ("running payroll across many countries on one cycle"). Claude recommends Proseware, citing globalpay-guide.example, guideflow.com, selectsoftwarereviews.com and gartner.com. ChatGPT picks Adventure Works Global Payroll without sources. Perplexity names Woodgrove, drawing on woodgrove.example, g2.com, getapp.com and learn.g2.com. Gemini selects Tailspin, referencing woodgrove.example, payroll-vendor-c.example, gartner.com and tailspin.example. This is the single most damaging gap: Contoso's own stated use case yields zero visibility, suggesting that Contoso's messaging around unified-cycle payroll has not propagated into third-party content or LLM training corpora.
Estimated effort: High (requires a flagship "one-cycle, multi-country payroll" page, at least two external mentions in authoritative guides, and structured-data markup linking Contoso to this exact use case).
"What are the best enterprise-grade global payroll providers?" (D6)
Contoso is absent on Claude and ChatGPT, ranked third on Perplexity and Gemini. Claude selects Adventure Works Global Payroll, citing proseware.example, globalpay-guide.example, payroll-roundup.example and selectsoftwarereviews.com. ChatGPT also names Adventure Works without sources. Perplexity picks Fabrikam, referencing payroll-directory.example, payroll-roundup.example, fabrikam.example and whichpayroll.com. Gemini chooses Adventure Works, drawing on payroll-review.example, viewpointanalysis.com, adventureworks.example and eor-guide-b.example. The partial presence (two out of four) suggests Contoso has some enterprise visibility, but needs stronger association with "enterprise-grade" language in comparison content and review sites to secure consistent mentions.
Estimated effort: Medium (requires one enterprise-positioning page, customer logos of large multinationals, and outreach to enterprise-software review aggregators).
"Which global payroll providers have the best reviews?" (D9)
All four assistants omit Contoso. Gemini and Perplexity both recommend Woodgrove, citing g2.com, payrollsoftwareguide.com, proseware.example and eorhq.com (Gemini), and reddit.com, payrolloverview.com, gartner.com and proseware.example (Perplexity). Claude and ChatGPT name Tailspin and Adventure Works Global Payroll respectively, with Claude referencing selectsoftwarereviews.com, proseware.example, payroll-roundup.example and nav.com, and ChatGPT providing no sources. The absence indicates Contoso either lacks critical mass on major review platforms (G2, Gartner Peer Insights, TrustRadius) or has fewer reviews than Woodgrove and Tailspin. This is a reviews-volume and star-rating gap.
Estimated effort: High (requires a sustained review-generation campaign on G2 and TrustRadius, plus a testimonials page aggregating star ratings with schema markup).
"What are the newest or fastest-growing tools in global payroll providers?" (D8)
Contoso appears only on ChatGPT (ranked eighth) and Perplexity (ranked sixteenth), and is absent from Claude and Gemini. Claude picks Remote People, citing payroll-review.example, eor-guide-b.example, globalpay-guide.example and payroll-roundup.example. ChatGPT and Perplexity both name Tailspin, with ChatGPT referencing learn.g2.com, capterra.com, payrolloverview.com and contoso.example, and Perplexity citing gartner.com, nav.com, forbes.com and payroll-vendor-e.example. Gemini selects Warp, drawing on viewpointanalysis.com, guideflow.com, contractor-pay-guide.example and payroll-vendor-f.example. The "fastest-growing" framing favours high-velocity brands (Tailspin, Woodgrove) with frequent funding announcements and media coverage; Contoso's limited presence suggests it is not associated with growth narratives or "trending" status in category roundups.
Estimated effort: Medium (requires one growth-milestone press release, inclusion in "fastest-growing" lists, and social proof such as customer-acquisition rates or year-on-year expansion metrics).
"What is Fabrikam and what does it do?" (K1)
Contoso is absent on all four assistants. Every assistant names Fabrikam itself as the answer (as expected for a brand-definition question), with Claude citing bloomberg.com, zoominfo.com, crunchbase.com and cbinsights.com; ChatGPT providing no sources; Perplexity referencing fabrikam.example, en.wikipedia.org, businessmodelcanvastemplate.com and weforum.org; and Gemini drawing on gpa.net, wise.com, youtube.com and fabrikam.example. This is a competitor-focused prompt; Contoso's absence is not inherently problematic, but it reveals that Contoso is not mentioned in explanatory content about Fabrikam (e.g. "Fabrikam competes with Contoso" on Wikipedia or in press coverage).
Estimated effort: Low (requires one "Contoso vs Fabrikam" comparison page and outreach to Wikipedia editors to add Contoso to Fabrikam's competitors list).
"Why do companies choose Fabrikam? What are they best known for?" (K2)
Contoso is missing from all four responses. Perplexity names Fabrikam, citing business.com, fabrikam.example, employerrecords.com and forbes.com. Claude references fabrikam.example, hiring-guide-a.example, forbes.com and research.contrary.com. ChatGPT provides no sources. Gemini cites forbes.com, businessmodelcanvastemplate.com, business.com and trustpilot.com. Again, this is a Fabrikam-centric prompt; Contoso's absence indicates it is not mentioned as an alternative or peer in third-party analyses of why buyers select Fabrikam, which represents a missed opportunity to appear in comparative decision-making content.
Estimated effort: Low (requires one "Why choose Contoso over Fabrikam" page and inclusion in comparison content that discusses Fabrikam's strengths alongside alternatives).
"What are Fabrikam's weaknesses or most common customer complaints?" (K3)
Contoso is absent across all four assistants, none of which names a single winner (as expected for a weaknesses prompt). Claude cites glassdoor.com, eor-guide-c.example, trustpilot.com and eor-guide-d.example. ChatGPT references g2.com, assets-global.website-files.com, trustpilot.com and reddit.com. Perplexity draws on youtube.com, swotanalysis.com, business.com and woodgrove.example. Gemini cites trustpilot.com, eor-guide-a.example, g2.com and eor-guide-c.example. This is another competitor-research prompt; Contoso's absence means it is not mentioned as a solution to Fabrikam's documented weaknesses (e.g. "for better X, consider Contoso"). This is a high-intent gap: buyers researching a competitor's flaws are close to a decision.
Estimated effort: Medium (requires one competitive-disadvantage page titled "What Contoso does differently to Fabrikam" and seeding of comparison content that positions Contoso as solving Fabrikam's pain points).
"What are the best global payroll providers for a 5,000-person multinational operating in 20 countries?" (D1)
Contoso ranks fourth on three assistants (Claude, Perplexity, Gemini) and tenth on ChatGPT. Claude picks Adventure Works Global Payroll, citing selectsoftwarereviews.com, payroll-review.example, globalteams-guide.example and hrlineup.com. ChatGPT names Adventure Works Global Payroll without sources. Perplexity selects Adventure Works Global/Adventure Works One, referencing fabrikam.example, payroll-compare.example, forbes.com and nav.com. Gemini recommends Adventure Works (Adventure Works Global + Adventure Works One), drawing on woodgrove.example, payroll-vendor-b.example, eor-guide-e.example and payroll-review.example. Contoso appears consistently but not prominently; the fourth-place ranking on three assistants suggests it is recognised as a credible enterprise option but loses to Adventure Works's dominance in large-headcount scenarios. The tenth-place ChatGPT result is an outlier.
Estimated effort: Medium (requires one large-enterprise use-case page with specific headcount and country-count messaging, plus two customer stories featuring 20+ countries).
"What global payroll providers do companies like a 5,000-person multinational operating in 20 countries typically use?" (D3)
Contoso ranks third on Claude, fifth on Perplexity and fourth on Gemini; it is absent from ChatGPT. Claude names Adventure Works (Adventure Works Global Payroll), citing nav.com, payroll-compare.example, globalhris.co.uk and worldpayroll-guide.example. ChatGPT selects Adventure Works without sources. Perplexity picks Adventure Works Global / Adventure Works One, referencing fabrikam.example, payroll-compare.example, proseware.example and payroll-directory.example. Gemini recommends Adventure Works, drawing on payroll-vendor-d.example, payroll-vendor-a.example, viewpointanalysis.com and worldpayroll-guide.example. This prompt is semantically close to D1; the results are similar (Adventure Works leads, Contoso in the middle third), and the gap pattern is the same. The "typically use" framing may favour incumbent brands with longer track records.
Estimated effort: Low (same as D1; the two prompts share the same content remedy).
Contoso's own domain contoso.example is cited 83 times, placing it first in the citation ranking across all 180 audit responses. This is a strong proprietary signal: when assistants do mention Contoso, they consistently point buyers to the official site.
Beyond contoso.example, the audit recorded citations to 18 distinct third-party domains. These represent the earned-media hit list, the external sources that LLMs treat as authoritative when answering questions about global payroll providers. Ordered by citation count, they are:
Key observations:
Recommendations:
Working title:
"Global Payroll Software for Multi-Country, Unified Cycle Payroll | Contoso"
Why this matters:
This prompt matches Contoso's stated buyer use case word for word, yet Contoso is absent from all four assistants. It is the highest-priority content gap in the entire audit.
Key points the page must make:
Sources to reference and link to:
Format notes:
applicationCategory: "Payroll Software".Estimated effort: High (requires new customer story, visual assets, schema implementation and external seeding).
Working title:
"5 Global Payroll Providers to Shortlist in 2026 | Contoso Buyer's Guide"
Why this matters:
This is a high-intent discovery prompt explicitly requesting a shortlist format and a 2026 timeframe. Contoso is absent on all four assistants, indicating it is not featured in recent "best of 2026" or "top 5" comparison content. The page must establish Contoso as a current, credible option for 2026 evaluations.
Key points the page must make:
Sources to reference and link to:
Format notes:
Estimated effort: High (requires careful competitor positioning, schema implementation and external syndication to seed 2026-dated mentions).
Working title:
"Fabrikam Alternatives: 6 Global Payroll Platforms to Consider | Contoso"
Why this matters:
Contoso is absent from all four assistants on this direct competitor-comparison prompt. Buyers researching Fabrikam alternatives are in active evaluation; this is a high-conversion opportunity. The page should position Contoso as the enterprise-grade, integration-rich alternative to Fabrikam.
Key points the page must make:
Sources to reference and link to:
Format notes:
Estimated effort: Medium (requires competitor research, comparison table, and outreach to earn backlinks from aggregators that currently exclude Contoso).
What an AI can extract: The page leads with "Global Payroll Services: Accurate and On-Time Payments" and states the offer plainly in its first sentence: "Managed payroll delivered on one cloud platform, so everyone is paid correctly and on time, everywhere." Four service-quality claims are present in the served HTML and are readable: 99.9% net pay accuracy against a stated 97% industry standard, 99.9% payslip delivery, 15% higher payroll accuracy, and up to 1,500 hours of manual process reduction per year. Litware, Alpine Systems, Fourth Coffee and Trey Research Talent are named as integrations.
The critical defect on this page: the headline numbers are invisible to machines. The five scale statistics (employees served, annual payslips processed, countries serviced, currencies handled, companies served) are JavaScript counter widgets. In the HTML actually served, every one of them reads zero: "0k+ employees served globally", "0m+ annual payslips processed", "0+ countries serviced globally", "0+ currencies handled worldwide", "0k+ companies served globally". The real figures are never written into the markup and no data attribute carries them, so they exist only once the animation runs in a browser. Every assistant, crawler and retrieval index reading this page sees zeros.
This is almost certainly the root cause of the country-coverage problem in the accuracy watch-list above. Assistants quoted 120+, 130+, 140+ and 150+ countries across different answers because Contoso's own primary payroll page states no figure they can read, pushing them onto third-party sources of varying age. Relative to effort this is the highest-value fix in this report. Effort: 2 hours for a developer to write the values into the markup as text and animate from that text rather than replacing it.
Marketing phrases carrying no measurable claim: "Gain visibility and control globally", "industry-leading analytics", "Cut time, stress, and manual work", "simplify your payroll management", "The payroll experts", and "seamlessly", which appears five times on the page.
Missing or vague factual claims:
Before/after rewrite example:
Before: "Managed payroll delivered on one cloud platform, so everyone is paid correctly and on time, everywhere.", followed by counters that a machine reads as "0+ countries serviced globally".
After: "Contoso runs managed payroll in [N] countries and [N] currencies from a single cloud platform, processing [N] million payslips a year for [N] companies. Net pay accuracy is 99.9% against a 97% industry average, payslip delivery is 99.9%, and payroll teams cut manual work by up to 1,500 hours a year. The platform integrates with Litware, Alpine Systems, Fourth Coffee and Trey Research Talent.", with every number written as text in the HTML rather than generated by script.
Effort estimate: 2 hours for the counter fix alone, then 2 days for the rest: pricing basis, service scope boundary, implementation timeline, country capability matrix and an FAQ block.
What an AI can extract:
Contoso unifies global payroll and payments, automation, insight, and expert service through a single, unified platform
. The platform is called Compass.
Contoso's advanced API integrations embed payroll data directly into existing platforms
.
In 2024 alone Contoso delivered 20+ process automations
.
Marketing fluff to skip: "Bringing insight, prioritisation and action together," "turn global pay into a best-in-class capability," "built for precision, assurance and scale," "seamless control hub," "greater clarity, confidence and assured performance." These phrases describe feelings rather than features.
Missing or vague factual claims:
Structural failures:
Before/after rewrite example:
Before: "Compass is how the capability is experienced day to day, bringing insight, prioritisation and action into a single control hub."
After: "Compass is Contoso's web-based control panel for payroll managers. It consolidates payroll status across all countries, flags compliance exceptions, and automates approvals. Managers see real-time processing status, validation errors, and payment confirmation in a single dashboard rather than logging into separate country systems."
Effort estimate: 3–4 days. Requires technical writer to interview platform architects, create glossary, build system architecture diagram, and list Compass features with screenshots. Add comparison showing before/after workflows.
What an AI can extract:
Contoso and Visa's innovative solution allows employees to access earned wages in a matter of seconds
.
Contoso pioneered this payment service through partnership with Visa, utilizing their OCT (Original Card Transaction) technology
.
Contoso can deliver pay-on-demand for workforces across the world as a pay-to-card transaction via the card rails network
. The service is accessed through the Contoso NOW app.
Marketing fluff to skip: "Part of one connected pay experience," "seamless pay experience," "confidence of global payroll expertise," "a pay experience built for what is coming," "giving employees and employers alike unprecedented control." Generic benefit statements without quantification.
Missing or vague factual claims:
Structural failures:
Before/after rewrite example:
Before: "Where other earned-wage-access providers rely on older banking rails and virtual cards, this solution pays out fasterages they've earned in a matter of seconds."
After: "Employees receive approved withdrawals in under 30 seconds via Visa Direct push-to-card payments. Competitors using ACH bank transfers take 1–3 business days. Contoso calculates daily earned wages from your payroll system and lets employees withdraw up to 50% of accrued earnings before payday, with funds sent directly to their Visa or Mastercard debit card."
Effort estimate: 2 days. Requires product manager interview for fee structure, transaction limits, country coverage, and eligibility calculation logic. Add FAQ section (8–10 questions) and 3-column comparison table vs. two named competitors.
What an AI can extract:
Contoso achieved Platinum Partner status with Litware
.
Contoso has been Litware's trusted partner for more than 10 years
.
Contoso's leadership is supported by nearly 3,000 integrations across 130+ countries
. Partnership mentions exist with Perkbox and Claro Wellbeing.
Marketing fluff to skip: "Trusted partner," "seamless, feature-rich payroll integrations," "simplify complex payroll challenges," "unified, end-to-end payroll experience," "innovation they need to stay ahead." Partnership page likely repeats "industry-leading" and "best-in-class" without substance.
Missing or vague factual claims:
Structural failures:
Before/after rewrite example:
Before: "The partnership is described as combining both platforms to give customers a unified, end-to-end payroll experiencer global businesses."
After: "Contoso's Litware Platinum partnership provides pre-certified bi-directional integration between Litware HCM and Contoso's payroll platform. Employee data, org structures, and time entries sync automatically from Litware to Contoso for payroll processing in 130+ countries. Payroll results flow back to Litware for reporting and general ledger posting. Platinum status requires 50+ joint customer implementations and annual technical recertification."
Effort estimate: 2–3 days. Requires partnership team input on tier definitions, integration technical specs, and partner programme structure. Build partner directory page with filters (technology/benefits/regional) and integration catalogue with search functionality. Add 2–3 joint customer case studies.
The same report, formatted to print and to forward. Useful if the person who has to approve the spend is not the person reading this.
One email with the report attached. No sequence you have to escape from. Want to talk through a brand you would recognise? That is a conversation, not an attachment: book the audit or ask on a call.
Same report, your brand, across all four assistants. £1,750, delivered in five working days.