Model-based check: across 12 fresh AI answers to this query (no knowledge of your site), how often you are named, and who is.
What AI can extract from your site vs ErgoChair.eu. This is what to close.
Pricing clarity
Total cost (VAT, shipping) is unclear; ErgoChair shows an all-in price.
Social proof
18 reviews and no named customers versus 240 reviews on ErgoChair.
Comparison content
No comparison or alternatives page; ErgoChair has "vs" pages AI can cite.
Citable proof
"Ergonomic" lacks specifics; the competitor cites test data and warranty terms.
Trust signals
Returns and security are clear on both sites.
Answer-ready content
No page directly answers this buyer query; add one.
Directional AI decision analysis based on public website evidence: who 100 simulated AI buyers chose. Not a prediction of human behaviour.
Estimated AI-preference share if you apply the top fixes below
Closing the pricing, proof, and comparison gaps is estimated to lift your AI decision share from 24% to about 41%, moving you from fourth to second for this query.
Projection is an estimate based on this simulation, not a guarantee.
A sample of individual buyer verdicts and their reasoning
“Clear all-in price under €300 and 240 reviews. I could not tell what YourStore would actually cost after VAT and shipping.”
“It cited independent lumbar test data and a 12-year warranty. YourStore just said "ergonomic" with no proof.”
“YourStore was the only one that clearly promised next-day EU delivery, which mattered most to me.”
“Recognizable brand with an easy returns policy I could find quickly.”
Replay how each AI buyer evaluated you. Expand any buyer for their full reasoning.
You lost mainly on the evidence AI could extract, not on the product. Your price omitted VAT and shipping, you showed only 18 reviews, and you had no comparison or answer-ready page for this query. ErgoChair surfaced all of these clearly, so AI could justify naming it.
What competitors do better that AI buyers noticed
- ✕All-in pricing shown clearly under €300
- ✕240 reviews versus your 18
- ✕Comparison and "alternatives" pages AI can cite
- ✕Cited lumbar test data and a 12-year warranty
Issues AI buyers raised most often across all simulations
- Total cost unclear (VAT, shipping)31×
- Few reviews (18)24×
- No comparison page19×
- Delivery time not stated14×
Highest-leverage changes to close the evidence gap and win more AI recommendations. Check them off as you ship.
- 1Show the total landed price (VAT and shipping) on the product page
- 2Add and surface verified reviews and named customers
- 3Publish a "best ergonomic chair under €300" answer-ready page
- 4Add a comparison page versus the chairs AI names
- 5State delivery time and warranty terms clearly
Ship these this week
- ✓Add total price including VAT and shipping
- ✓State next-day EU delivery on the product page
- ✓Add five verified review quotes above the fold
Longer-term moves to build AI authority
- →Build a small library of answer-ready buyer-question pages
- →Earn third-party reviews and mentions to grow AI authority
Sites analysed
Methodology
This report combines three signals: a model-based AI visibility check (how often AI assistants name you for this query, with no knowledge of your site), evidence extracted from the public pages of you and your competitors, and directional synthetic decision runs (100 simulated AI buyers). It shows how AI systems evaluate the available evidence. It does not query your personal ChatGPT/Perplexity session and does not predict individual human buying behaviour.
This is a sample report · AgentChoice · agentchoice.app