Report
Run: 7feffa18
· Project: trengotest1-assessment
· Brand: TrengoTest1
Generated: 2026-02-13T10:55:10.948359Z
· Status: succeeded
AI Visibility Score (Buyer Discovery)
Measures how often your brand appears in non-branded, category-level AI answers, before a user knows you exist.
Score (0–100)
36.4
Formula: 0.5*brand_rate + 0.3*(100-displacement_rate) + 0.2*avg_strength, clamped 0..100
Primary score uses unbranded (buyer discovery) only.
Unbranded fetched: 40 · Branded fetched: 0
What this means
Higher is better: you are present more often, displaced less often, and when you are present your mention is stronger.
Brand-Aware AI Performance
Measures how AI systems describe and position your brand when users search for it directly.
Branded performance does not affect the primary visibility score.
Score (0–100)
0.0
Formula: 0.5*brand_rate + 0.3*(100-displacement_rate) + 0.2*avg_strength, clamped 0..100
What this means
This reflects brand-aware queries only. Use it to validate positioning on branded evaluation questions.
Kpis
In neutral mode, headline KPIs use run-item customer rows (denominator: 40).
This report separates buyer-discovery (unbranded) from brand-aware (branded) queries. Primary score uses unbranded only.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Answers fetched (total) | 40 |
| Unbranded answers fetched (primary) | 40 |
| Branded answers fetched (secondary) | 0 |
| Customer KPI rows (unbranded only) | 40 |
| Brand mention rate (customer entity only) | 35.0% |
| Brand absent rate (customer entity only) | 65.0% |
| Brand missing answers | 26 |
| Displaced when brand missing (of missing) | 17 (65.4%) |
| Displacement rate (customer entity only) | 42.5% |
| Displaced when brand missing | 17 (42.5%) |
| Displaced despite brand mentioned | 0 (0.0%) |
| Average strength score (customer entity only) | 8.0 |
| Mentions with competitors | 60.0% |
| Evidence coverage | 35.0% |
| Errors | 0 |
Coverage summary
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Expected items | 40 |
| Fetched items | 40 (100.0%) |
| Analyzed items | 40 (100.0%) |
| Successful items | 40 |
| Failed items | 0 |
| Partial completion | no |
Error summary
Total errors: 0
· Error rate: 0.0%
No run-item errors recorded.
Run cost estimate
| Scope | Input tokens | Output tokens | Total tokens | Estimated cost (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 2952 | 14758 | 17710 | $0.032348 |
| openai | 1495 | 2741 | 4236 | $0.001869 |
| gemini | 1457 | 12017 | 13474 | $0.030480 |
By provider
| Provider | Answers fetched | Brand rate | Displaced rate | Avg strength | Mentions with competitors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gemini | 20 | 30.0% | 40.0% | 8.0 | 65.0% |
| openai | 20 | 40.0% | 45.0% | 8.0 | 55.0% |
Your brand scorecard
Customer entities only (this should typically be just your brand).
| Entity | Answers | Brand rate | Displaced rate | Avg strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TrengoTest1 | 40 | 35.0% | 42.5% | 8.0 |
Competitors scorecard
Competitor entities only.
No competitor entities found for this run.
Competitive pressure
Top competitors overall
| Competitor | Count |
|---|---|
| zendesk | 20 |
| front | 18 |
| intercom | 6 |
Top competitors when brand missing
| Competitor | Count |
|---|---|
| front | 15 |
| zendesk | 14 |
| intercom | 3 |
Risk highlights (Buyer Discovery)
Top displaced
| # | Provider | Entity | Competitors | Strength | Question | Open |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | gemini | TrengoTest1 | front | 0.0 | Explore shared inbox solutions that enhance team collaboration and streamline email management. | View |
| 5 | openai | TrengoTest1 | front | 0.0 | Are there cost-effective shared inbox tools available? | View |
| 7 | openai | TrengoTest1 | zendesk, intercom | 0.0 | Discover tools that improve response times for customer support teams. | View |
| 8 | gemini | TrengoTest1 | front | 0.0 | What is the cost range for effective shared inbox platforms? | View |
| 9 | gemini | TrengoTest1 | zendesk, front | 0.0 | Which shared inbox solutions are ideal for improving customer support efficiency? | View |
| 9 | openai | TrengoTest1 | zendesk, front | 0.0 | Which shared inbox solutions are ideal for improving customer support efficiency? | View |
| 10 | gemini | TrengoTest1 | zendesk, front | 0.0 | Can you suggest some email management solutions for teams? | View |
| 12 | openai | TrengoTest1 | zendesk | 0.0 | Which email management solutions are best for customer support teams? | View |
| 15 | gemini | TrengoTest1 | zendesk, front | 0.0 | What are some alternatives to Freshdesk for shared inbox solutions? | View |
| 15 | openai | TrengoTest1 | zendesk, front | 0.0 | What are some alternatives to Freshdesk for shared inbox solutions? | View |
Top low strength mentions
| # | Provider | Entity | Strength | Question | Open |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | openai | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Evaluate shared inbox platforms that offer seamless integration capabilities for better team collaboration. | View |
| 2 | openai | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Explore shared inbox solutions that enhance team collaboration and streamline email management. | View |
| 3 | gemini | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Discover tools that improve response times for customer support inquiries. | View |
| 3 | openai | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Discover tools that improve response times for customer support inquiries. | View |
| 4 | openai | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Discover shared inbox solutions that improve customer support efficiency and response times. | View |
| 6 | openai | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Discover tools that improve customer response times and facilitate team collaboration. | View |
| 10 | openai | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Can you suggest some email management solutions for teams? | View |
| 12 | gemini | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Which email management solutions are best for customer support teams? | View |
| 13 | openai | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Can you provide the cost details for shared inbox solutions that improve customer support? | View |
| 14 | gemini | TrengoTest1 | 20.0 | Discover shared inbox solutions that improve email management for customer support teams. | View |
Risk highlights (Brand-Aware)
Top displaced
No displacement detected for branded queries.
Top low strength mentions
No low-strength mentions detected for branded queries.
Recommendations (Buyer Discovery)
These are generated from the same fields you already store (brand_mentioned, displacement, strength_score, evidence_snippet, competitor mentions).
-
Reduce displacement on evaluation queriesDisplacement rate is 42.5%Create or strengthen comparison and 'best X' pages with concise reusable proof points (pricing signals, integrations, outcomes).Examples:
- Explore shared inbox solutions that enhance team collaboration and streamline email management.
- Are there cost-effective shared inbox tools available?
- Discover tools that improve response times for customer support teams.
-
Increase strength of brand mentionsAverage strength score is 8.0Make differentiators explicit and consistent across core pages (who it is for, what it replaces, quantified outcomes, integrations, implementation time).Examples:
- Evaluate shared inbox platforms that offer seamless integration capabilities for better team collaboration.
- Explore shared inbox solutions that enhance team collaboration and streamline email management.
- Discover tools that improve response times for customer support inquiries.
-
Improve evidence coverageEvidence coverage is 35.0%Add verifiable snippets models can cite: customer stats, benchmark claims with sources, short feature definitions, and mini FAQs on money pages.
Recommendations (Brand-Aware)
No brand-aware recommendations yet.