August 2026 Benchmark
Korean SaaS AI Visibility Benchmark
The same 12 Korean B2B SaaS domains as the July 2026 issue, re-measured under identical conditions (measured 2026-08-12)
Key findings
- • Across 12 domains the median score (p50) is 53 out of 100 and the top 10% reach 73 — 6 at grade A and 2 never mentioned (grade D), leaving the bottom band unchanged from the previous issue
- • Mention rates barely moved, but own-domain citation rates shifted sharply — ChatGPT 25%, Perplexity 75%, Gemini 67%
- • The leading cited sources were reshuffled — the video platform that led the previous issue dropped out of the top tier, while blog platforms and trade media moved up
Change versus the previous issue
Measured on 2026-08-12 with the same sample and the same conditions as the 2026-07 issue (measured 2026-07-23). Aggregate metrics from both issues are shown side by side.
| Metric | 2026-07 | 2026-08 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median score (p50) | 51 | 53 | +2 |
| Top 25% (p75) | 59 | 58 | -1 |
| Top 10% (p90) | 67 | 73 | +6 |
| Brands at grade A | 5 | 6 | +1 |
| ChatGPT mention rate | 33% | 33% | 0% |
| ChatGPT own-domain citation rate | 8% | 25% | +17% |
| Perplexity mention rate | 83% | 92% | +9% |
| Perplexity own-domain citation rate | 42% | 75% | +33% |
| Gemini mention rate | 83% | 83% | 0% |
| Gemini own-domain citation rate | 83% | 67% | -16% |
With 12 domains in the sample, a single domain equals 8.3 percentage points. Across two same-day rounds individual scores moved by up to 17 points (median 6) and 2 domains changed grade, so read these deltas as direction rather than precision.
Sample and measurement conditions
The 12 Korean B2B SaaS domains selected for the previous issue were kept unchanged, along with the inputs and the measurement conditions. Individual brands and domains are not disclosed (anonymized aggregate).
Inclusion: B2B SaaS operated by Korean companies · public website · spread across 8 sub-verticals · public recognition (news/funding history). Exclusion: consumer-first services, Korean branches of global vendors, and RanketAI itself (conflict of interest). The sample is held fixed from the 2026-07 issue, and for repeated runs per domain only the latest valid run enters the distribution.
Major LLMs (ChatGPT · Gemini · Perplexity) · diverse purchase/comparison/discovery prompt combinations · multi-signal axes — identical to the 2026-07 issue · See the full methodology
Based on live answers from ChatGPT · Gemini · Perplexity · measured 2026-08-12 · two rounds on the same day
Score distribution
Category score percentiles (0-100) and grade distribution. Grades run on four levels (A/B/C/D).
| Median (p50) | Top 25% (p75) | Top 10% (p90) |
|---|---|---|
| 53 | 58 | 73 |
Grade distribution
| A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
Platform comparison
Even for the same sample, mentions and citations differ sharply by platform. The denominator is the 12 valid measurements per platform.
| Platform | Brand mention rate | Own-domain citation rate |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | 33% | 25% |
| Perplexity | 92% | 75% |
| Gemini | 83% | 67% |
The ChatGPT mention rate stayed flat at 33%, the same as the previous issue, while its own-domain citation rate rose to 25%. Being mentioned and being cited move independently.
Citation source patterns
Top third-party sources cited in AI answers (sample domains excluded). The video platform that led the previous issue fell out of the top tier, and blog platforms, trade media, and wiki-style pages took its place.
| Host | Citations |
|---|---|
| impactflow.kr | 15 |
| reviewinsight.blog | 15 |
| blog.naver.com | 14 |
| tistory.com | 12 |
| zdnet.co.kr | 11 |
| daouoffice.com | 9 |
| platum.kr | 9 |
| brunch.co.kr | 8 |
| global.it-trend.jp | 8 |
| namu.wiki | 8 |
Interpretation and priorities
- • Observation — per-domain score movement falls inside the same-day re-measurement band. A single issue-to-issue difference is not enough to judge an individual brand.
- • Observation — the composition of cited sources, by contrast, changed clearly. Which documents get used as evidence moved faster than which brands get mentioned.
- • Priority — check whether your information exists on the source types that dominate citations (blog platforms, trade media, wiki-style pages, comparison reviews), then reinforce your own site as supporting evidence. This is not a guarantee of causation.
Frequently asked questions
Did Korean B2B SaaS AI visibility improve versus the previous issue?
For this sample of 12 domains the median score is 53, the top 10% reach 73, and 6 domains sit at grade A. The upper band moved up slightly, but per-domain movement stays within measurement variance, so we do not call it an improvement.
Scores move between runs — how reliable are they?
Across two same-day rounds individual scores moved by up to 17 points (median 6) and 2 of 12 domains changed grade. Reading grades and repeated-measurement trends is safer than reading a single score.
Why is our brand missing from ChatGPT answers?
In this measurement the ChatGPT mention rate was 33%, far below Perplexity (92%), and unchanged from the previous issue. Brands with fewer third-party documents in search (comparisons, reviews, wikis, press) appear more exposed to this gap.
Why do results differ by platform?
Each platform draws on different sources and cites them differently. Here Perplexity cited own domains most often at 75%, while Gemini fell to 67% from the previous issue.
Can we see our own ranking?
No. This report is a fully anonymized aggregate and does not disclose individual brand rankings. To find your position, measure your own domain and compare its grade (A-D) against the distribution.
What kinds of content get cited in AI answers?
In this measurement trade media, blog platforms (Naver Blog, Tistory, Brunch), review-style documents, and wiki-style pages were the leading cited sources. Third-party surfaces outweigh own domains; the full list is in the citation source table above.
Limitations
- • Aggregated from 12 domains sampled from the public web — not product telemetry and not a representative sample of the whole industry.
- • In two same-day rounds, individual scores moved by up to 17 points (median 6) and 2 of 12 domains changed grade. Month-over-month score changes had a median of 5.5 points — inside that band — so per-domain movement versus the previous issue should be read as measurement variance, not trend.
- • The gap from the 2026-07 measurement date (2026-07-23) is 20 days, not a full month. Until issue intervals become uniform, treat the time series as indicative only.
- • Based on a single measurement date (2026-08-12); with this sample size one domain equals 8.3 percentage points. Sub-vertical breakdowns and fine-grained percentile reads are limited.
Data download
Where would your domain land in its category?
Measure how AI answers mention and cite your brand under the same conditions, and see where your grade (A-D) sits in the category distribution.
Measure brand visibility →