Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) can’t be measured the same way we measured traditional SEO. Early studies show that tracking individual prompts or “where you show up” in a single AI response is unreliable and often misleading. LLM outputs change constantly based on context, conversation history, and probabilistic modeling. Instead of prompt-level tracking, marketers should focus on higher-level indicators like overall visibility trends, topic-level authority, and business outcomes influenced by AI discovery. In short: if GEO feels hard to measure right now, it’s because the wrong metrics are still being used.
As Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) becomes a core part of modern SEO strategies, a familiar question is resurfacing—just in a new form:
“How do we measure this?”
In traditional SEO, marketers once obsessed over individual keyword rankings. Over time, we learned that ranking reports alone missed the bigger picture. Topic coverage, authority, and conversion outcomes mattered far more than whether a page ranked #3 or #5 on a given day.
Today, GEO is at a similar crossroads. And if there’s one thing becoming increasingly clear, it’s this:
Prompt tracking is the new keyword ranking report and it’s leading teams in the wrong direction.
Recent studies highlighted by Search Engine Land confirm what many marketers have suspected for months:
-
Users rarely prompt LLMs the same way
-
Even when they do, results almost never repeat
-
Identical prompts return different recommendation sets over 99% of the time
That level of volatility makes prompt-by-prompt tracking fundamentally unreliable as a KPI.
As our CEO, Patrick Sullivan, put it, “Prompt tracking is essentially a useless metric to measure GEO performance. It feels precise, but it’s measuring the wrong thing—just like ranking reports did years ago.”
LLMs don’t work like search engines. They factor in conversation history, context, inferred intent, and probabilistic outputs. Think of it as personalization on steroids.
So when someone says, “I searched ChatGPT for X and we didn’t show up,” that result alone tells us… almost nothing.
Why LLM Visibility Is Different From Rankings
Traditional SEO metrics assume a consistent query, SERP, and relatively predicatable rankings. LLM-based systems break all three assumptions. According to recent analysis:
-
Source inclusion varies across sessions
-
Visibility is probabilistic, not deterministic
This means absence from a single response is not a signal of failure and presence in one response is not proof of success.
So… What Can We Measure Right Now?
While GEO measurement is still maturing, some KPIs are already proving more useful than others.
Metrics With Real Signal
1. Overall LLM Visibility Percentage
Rather than tracking individual prompts, measure:
-
How often your brand appears across many AI responses
-
Across many prompts, sessions, and tools
This mirrors how modern SEO evaluates topic authority rather than single keywords.
2. Topic-Level Coverage & Association
Are LLMs consistently associating your brand with:
-
Core services?
-
Key industries?
-
High-intent problem spaces?
This is the GEO equivalent of topical authority.
3. Brand Mention Frequency (Directional, Not Absolute)
Trends matter more than precision:
-
Are mentions increasing quarter over quarter?
-
Are competitors gaining share faster than you?
4. Assisted Conversion Signals
Early-stage, but important:
-
Traffic from AI surfaces
-
Branded search lift
-
Changes in lead quality or deal velocity tied to authoritative content
Metrics to Treat With Caution
-
Prompt-Level Rankings - Too volatile. Too narrow. Too misleading.
-
“We Didn’t Show Up” Screenshots - A single AI response is anecdotal, not diagnostic.
-
AI Tool-Specific Vanity Metrics - Visibility in one platform does not equal overall GEO performance.
The Bigger Shift Marketers Need to Make
GEO measurement requires the same mindset shift SEO went through a decade ago:
Stop chasing exact placements and start measuring authority, coverage, and outcomes.
Patrick summed it up well, “If we treat prompt tracking the way we treated ranking reports, we’ll miss the forest for the trees. Visibility is about presence across conversations—not winning one answer.”
How We’re Advising Clients Today
When stakeholders ask how GEO is performing, our guidance is simple:
-
Focus on visibility trends, not individual responses
-
Evaluate topic ownership, not prompt wins
-
Tie GEO efforts back to real business outcomes, wherever possible
And most importantly, set expectations early. GEO is not broken just because an LLM didn’t mention you once.
GEO measurement is still evolving—but the direction is clear.
The brands that win won’t be the ones chasing every prompt. They’ll be the ones building deep, consistent authority that LLMs can’t ignore, even as outputs change.
If SEO taught us anything, it’s this: The best metrics are rarely the most obvious ones.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Is prompt tracking a useful way to measure GEO performance?
Not really. Prompt tracking can be useful for spot checks or qualitative research, but it’s unreliable as a KPI. Studies show that even identical prompts rarely return the same answers, making individual prompt visibility too volatile to measure meaningful performance trends.
Why don’t LLM results repeat the way Google rankings do?
LLMs factor in conversation history, inferred intent, user behavior patterns, and probabilistic response generation. Unlike traditional search engines, they don’t return a fixed, ranked list—each response is dynamically assembled in context.
What GEO metrics should marketers focus on?
More reliable GEO indicators include overall visibility trends across many prompts, topic-level association and authority, brand mention frequency over time, and downstream signals like branded search lift or assisted conversions influenced by AI discovery.
How should teams respond when stakeholders say “we didn’t show up in ChatGPT”?
Treat single-response examples as anecdotal, not diagnostic. A better approach is to evaluate whether the brand consistently appears across related topics and conversations over time—similar to how modern SEO evaluates topic authority rather than single keyword rankings.