Win the answer above
the blue links.

No. SEO competes for ten blue links beneath a search box; GEO competes for the single generated answer that now sits above them. The mechanics are different: models look for liftable passages, clear authorship and structured signals before they decide who to quote. The two programmes share plumbing — schema, content depth, authority — which is why we usually run them together, but the targets, briefs and reporting are not the same.

The four we benchmark every month are Google AI Overviews, Bing Copilot answers, Perplexity, and ChatGPT search. We also keep an eye on Gemini, Claude, Grok and the conversational answers showing up inside vertical engines (You.com, Arc Search, Brave). They weight sources differently, so we build evidence that all of them can pick up rather than chasing any one surface.

Yes, regularly. Overviews stitch from multiple sources at once, and models often quote a passage from a page that sits 4–10 in classic results because the passage is cleaner, more recent, or has tighter structure. That's a big part of the opportunity — you don't have to outrank the incumbent to be the one cited.

Faster than classic search, but not as wildly as the headlines suggest. AI Overviews can rewrite the answer for a given query within a week of a source page changing; Perplexity is closer to real-time because it re-retrieves on every prompt. ChatGPT search and Gemini sit somewhere in between, with retrieval refreshing within days but the underlying model's defaults moving more slowly. We track all four weekly so you see drift before it costs you.

Three numbers, every month: share of generated answers (how often you appear in Overviews and Perplexity for your tracked queries), citation count (how many of those answers link to you), and assisted traffic (sessions arriving from generative surfaces). Plus a qualitative read of how the models describe you — which usually moves before the numbers do.