Request a demo

Terms of Use

1. Acceptance of Terms. Welcome to the BrightEdge Technologies, Inc. web site (the "Site"). By accessing the Site you agree to and are bound by all these terms of use and the associated privacy policy. If you do not agree you must not access or use the Site. If you are a BrightEdge customer these terms will supplement your current subscription agreement to the extent not inconsistent with such current subscription agreement. BrightEdge reserves the right to update these terms of use at any time. If we make any changes to our terms of use, we will post the new terms on our Site and update the "last revised" date set forth below. The updated terms of use will govern each use of the Site from the date of update forward. Therefore, we encourage you to check our terms of use whenever you use the Site.

2. Access and Use of Site. BrightEdge customers are granted access to the Site pursuant to these terms of use and the current subscription agreement in effect. All others are permitted access to this Site pursuant to these terms of use and solely for the purpose of evaluating the desirability of becoming a BrightEdge customer. Without limiting the foregoing restriction, access to the Site is not authorized or permitted by actual or prospective competitors of BrightEdge. You may not use the Site for any illegal or unauthorized purpose and you shall not, in using the Site, violate any laws including but not limited to intellectual property laws.

3. Customer Accessible Portions of Site. Certain portions of the Site are accessible only via password to existing BrightEdge customers. If you are not a BrightEdge customer you may not access or attempt to access these portions of the Site. If you open an account via an online registration process, you must complete the registration process by providing us with current, complete and accurate information as prompted by the applicable registration form. You also will choose a password and a user name. You are entirely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password and account. Furthermore, you are entirely responsible for any and all activities that occur under your account. You agree to notify BrightEdge immediately of any unauthorized use of your account or any other breach of security. BrightEdge will not be liable for any loss that you may incur as a result of someone else using your password or account, either with or without your knowledge. However, you could be held liable for losses incurred by BrightEdge or another party due to someone else using your account or password.

4. Reservation of Rights. The Site is the intellectual property and copyrighted work of BrightEdge and/or its licensors. Functionality available through the Site is also patent-pending. All rights, title and interest not expressly granted with respect to the Site are reserved. All content provided through the Site is provided on an "As Is" and "As Available" basis.

5. Links to Third Party Sites. The Site may provide links to third party web sites. BrightEdge is not responsible for third party content, products or services provided on or through such third party web sites and you bear all risks associated with the access and use of such web sites and third party content, products and services.

6. User Provided Material. You grant BrightEdge and its affiliates and assignees a worldwide, perpetual right and license to use in any medium all information and material you submit to or through the Site, including without limitation, all blog comments.

7. Indemnity. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless BrightEdge, its officers, directors, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, due to or arising out of any material that you upload (via blog or otherwise), your violation of the terms of use for the Site, or your violation or infringement of any third party rights.

8. Disclaimer. EXCEPT WHERE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE, THE SITE, AND ALL CONTENT PROVIDED ON OR THROUGH THE SITE, ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. BRIGHTEDGE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE AND ALL CONTENT PROVIDED ON OR THROUGH THE SITE. BRIGHTEDGE MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT: (A) THE SITE OR CONTENT WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS; (B) THE SITE WILL BE AVAILABLE ON AN UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE BASIS; (C) THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE SITE OR ANY CONTENT PROVIDED ON OR THROUGH THE SITE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE; OR (D) THE QUALITY OF ANY CONTENT PURCHASED OR OBTAINED BY YOU ON OR THROUGH THE SITE WILL MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS.

ANY CONTENT ACCESSED, DOWNLOADED OR OTHERWISE OBTAINED ON OR THROUGH THE USE OF THE SITE IS USED AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK. BRIGHTEDGE SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OR USE OF CONTENT.

BRIGHTEDGE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES OR UPDATES TO, AND MONITOR THE USE OF, THE SITE AND CONTENT PROVIDED ON OR THROUGH THE SITE AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE.

9. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT SHALL BRIGHTEDGE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, DATA OR USE, INCURRED BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION IN CONTRACT OR TORT, ARISING FROM YOUR ACCESS TO, OR USE OF, THE SITE OR ANY CONTENT PROVIDED ON OR THROUGH THE SITE.

10. Exclusions and Limitations. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE DISCLAIMER OR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES OR THE DISCLAIMER, EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF CERTAIN LIABILITIES. TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE HELD TO BE LEGALLY INVALID, DISCLAIMERS, EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN THESE TERMS OF USE, INCLUDING THOSE SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 8 AND 9, DO NOT APPLY AND ALL OTHER TERMS SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

11. Minors. This Site is not directed to minors, minors are not eligible to use the Site and we ask that they do not submit any information to us.

12. Applicable Laws. All matters relating to your access to, and use of, the Site and content provided on or through or uploaded to the Site shall be governed by U.S. federal law or the laws of the State of California. Any legal action or proceeding relating to your access to, or use of, the Site or content shall be instituted in a state or federal court in San Francisco, San Mateo or Santa Clara County, California. You and BrightEdge agree to submit to the jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, these courts in any such legal action or proceeding.

13. Copyright/Trademark. BrightEdge, the BrightEdge logo, SEO XRAY and Ad DNA are trademarks of BrightEdge Technologies, Inc. Other names appearing on the Site may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Last Updated: February 9, 2010

For the latest privacy policy, click here.
For information regarding BrightEdge's patents, click here.

Finance AI Citations: How ChatGPT and Google Define Trust Differently

As we continue our analysis of critical YMYL categories, this week we're examining Finance. When AI answers questions about money, investments, and taxes, accuracy directly impacts users' financial decisions. So who does each platform actually trust?

Data Collected

Using BrightEdge AI Catalyst™, we analyzed finance citations across ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overviews to understand:

  • Which source types each platform cites for finance queries
  • How citation patterns differ by query type (stock lookups, tax questions, retirement planning, educational queries)
  • Platform stability and volatility in finance citations
  • Where Google is experimenting with new content formats like video

Key Finding

Unlike healthcare — where we saw a two-way split between ChatGPT and Google — finance reveals three completely different trust philosophies. ChatGPT trusts financial data aggregators (70%+). Google AI Mode trusts trading platforms (40% — 7x higher than ChatGPT). Google AI Overviews trusts consumer education and video (34% video citations vs. 0% for ChatGPT). Same YMYL category, three fundamentally different approaches to authority.

The Trust Gap: Three Platforms, Three Philosophies

ChatGPT Trusts the Data. AI Mode Trusts Where You Trade. AI Overviews Trusts Where You Learn.

When we analyzed where finance citations actually come from, the platforms diverged sharply:

Financial Data/News: ChatGPT leads at 70%, followed by AI Mode at 51% and AI Overviews at 44%.

Trading Platforms: AI Mode dominates at 40%, with AI Overviews at 30% and ChatGPT far behind at just 6%. Trading platforms appear 7x more often in AI Mode than in ChatGPT.

Consumer Finance Education: AI Overviews leads dramatically at 96% combined share, compared to AI Mode at 42% and ChatGPT at 24%.

Video Content: AI Overviews cites video at 34% — the #2 source category. AI Mode shows 7%. ChatGPT cites zero video for finance queries.

Government (.gov): All three platforms show similar trust levels — ChatGPT at 11%, AI Mode at 12.5%, and AI Overviews at 17%.

ChatGPT leans heavily on financial data aggregators and market news — the platforms that provide real-time stock data, market analysis, and financial journalism.

Google AI Mode goes all-in on trading platforms — the brokerages and investment apps where people actually execute trades.

Google AI Overviews favors consumer finance education and video content — the explainers and educational resources.

The One Thing They Agree On

Government sources (.gov) are trusted at similar rates across all three platforms (11-17%). Regulatory and official sources like IRS, SEC, and FINRA form a baseline of trust. Everything above that baseline diverges dramatically.

Why the Difference? The Interface Explains the Trust Model

This three-way split actually makes sense when you consider the user experience:

AI Overviews still sits atop traditional search results. Users are in browse-and-learn mode — they expect to click through to educational content and watch video explainers. The trust signals reflect that intent.

ChatGPT and AI Mode are chat interfaces where users want direct, data-backed answers. ChatGPT leans toward authoritative data feeds. AI Mode — still within Google's ecosystem — bridges toward transactional sources where users might take action.

The interface drives the trust model.

Query Type Matters: Different Questions, Different Sources

Stock Lookups: Everyone Agrees

When users ask for stock prices or ticker information, all three platforms converge on financial data/news sources — but ChatGPT concentrates trust more heavily:

ChatGPT: 72% from financial data/news, less than 1% from trading platforms.

AI Mode: 50% from financial data/news, 8% from trading platforms.

AI Overviews: 47% from financial data/news, 4% from trading platforms.

ChatGPT trusts fewer sources more deeply for stock data. Google spreads trust wider, giving trading platforms a meaningful share.

Tax Queries: ChatGPT Trusts Government 2x More

For tax-related questions, ChatGPT shows the strongest preference for government sources:

ChatGPT: 50% government, 14% consumer education.

AI Mode: 37% government, 10% consumer education.

AI Overviews: 26% government, 14% consumer education.

ChatGPT is twice as likely to cite IRS and other government sources for tax queries compared to AI Overviews.

Retirement Planning: Same Pattern

For retirement and 401(k) queries, ChatGPT again leads with government sources:

ChatGPT: 39% government, 18% trading platforms, 24% consumer education.

AI Mode: 32% government, 19% trading platforms, 9% consumer education.

AI Overviews: 17% government, 16% trading platforms, 15% consumer education.

ChatGPT takes a government-first approach. Google's products split between government sources AND the platforms where you'd actually open a retirement account.

Educational "How-To" Queries: The Big Divergence

For educational finance queries, the platforms diverge most dramatically:

ChatGPT: 40% consumer education, 0% video, 13% government.

AI Mode: 15% consumer education, 0% video, 12% government.

AI Overviews: 14% consumer education, 9% video, 7% government.

ChatGPT trusts established consumer education publishers. AI Overviews pulls video into financial education queries — a content format ChatGPT isn't touching at all.

Trading/Investment Concepts: AI Overviews Bets on Video

For queries about options, ETFs, dividends, and other investment concepts:

ChatGPT: 23% consumer education, 0% video, 31% financial data/news.

AI Mode: 16% consumer education, 0% video, 15% financial data/news.

AI Overviews: 17% consumer education, 11% video, 12% financial data/news.

AI Overviews is betting that video can explain complex trading concepts. ChatGPT cites zero video for these queries.

The Pattern

For data queries (stock lookups): Everyone agrees — financial news wins.

For sensitive YMYL queries (tax, retirement): ChatGPT trusts government 2x more than AI Overviews.

For educational queries: ChatGPT trusts publishers; AI Overviews trusts video.

Query intent drives trust signals within each platform.

The Volatility Factor: Stability vs. Experimentation

ChatGPT Has Conviction. Google Is Testing.

Beyond source preferences, the platforms differ dramatically in stability:

ChatGPT: 65% average citation volatility (most stable).

AI Mode: 75% average citation volatility.

AI Overviews: 95% average citation volatility (most volatile).

Google's finance citations — especially in AI Overviews — are significantly more volatile than ChatGPT's. What you see in Google AI results today may shift. ChatGPT's citations have remained more stable over our tracking period.

What This Means

ChatGPT appears to have made decisions about finance authority and is sticking with them. Google is still actively experimenting — testing different source mixes, adjusting weights, and iterating on what works. AI Overviews shows the most experimentation, which aligns with its role as a newer feature sitting atop traditional search.

Google's Video Experiment in Finance

The Video Gap Is Massive

ChatGPT: 0% video citations.

AI Mode: 7% video citations.

AI Overviews: 34% video citations.

Google AI Overviews cites video as its #2 source category for finance queries. ChatGPT cites none. This is the most dramatic divergence between the platforms.

Which Query Types Trigger Video?

When Google does cite video for finance, it's concentrated in certain query types:

Trading/Investment Concepts: 11% video in AI Overviews.

How-To/Educational: 9% video.

Retirement Planning: 5% video.

Stock Lookups: 4% video.

Tax Related: Less than 1% video.

Video shows up most on conceptual and educational queries — not tax or stock data. Google appears to be testing where video adds value, starting with explanatory content before expanding to more sensitive YMYL queries.

What This Means for Financial Services Marketers

Track Citations Across All Three Platforms: ChatGPT, AI Mode, and AI Overviews have fundamentally different trust signals. You may be winning citations in one platform and invisible in the others. Measure all three.

Query Intent Matters: Stock lookups, tax questions, and retirement queries all pull from different source mixes. Understand which query types your content targets — and who gets cited for each.

Know Your Source Advantage:

  • Financial data aggregators have an edge on ChatGPT
  • Trading platforms have an edge on AI Mode
  • Consumer education sites have an edge on AI Overviews
  • Video content has an edge on AI Overviews (and no presence on ChatGPT)
  • Government sources are trusted across all three — the baseline

Google Is Still Testing — ChatGPT Has Decided: Google's higher volatility means your visibility there may shift. ChatGPT is more stable — what you see now is likely what you'll get. Plan accordingly.

Video Is a Major Opportunity (On Google): If you're considering video for finance content, know that AI Overviews is already citing video heavily (34%). But ChatGPT isn't touching it. Your video strategy is a Google play, not a ChatGPT play — at least for now.

Technical Methodology

Data Source: BrightEdge AI Catalyst™

Analysis Approach:

  • Finance URL-prompt pairs analyzed across three platforms: ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews
  • Source categorization by type: Financial Data/News, Trading Platforms, Consumer Finance Education, Government (.gov), Video, Social/Community, Reference, and others
  • Query intent categorization: Stock Lookup (Ticker), Stock Lookup (Company), How-To/Educational, Tax Related, Retirement Planning, Trading/Investment Concepts, Credit/Banking, Market Data
  • Volatility measured using average percentage changes across citation sources

Data Volume:

  • ChatGPT: 11,000+ URL-prompt pairs
  • Google AI Mode: 35,000+ URL-prompt pairs
  • Google AI Overviews: 30,000+ URL-prompt pairs

Key Takeaways

Three Different Trust Philosophies: ChatGPT trusts financial data aggregators (70%+). AI Mode trusts trading platforms (40% — 7x higher than ChatGPT). AI Overviews trusts consumer education and video (34%). Not a two-way split — a three-way divergence.

Query Intent Drives Trust Signals: Stock lookups converge on financial news. Tax and retirement queries show ChatGPT trusting government 2x more than AI Overviews. Educational queries show AI Overviews pulling in video while ChatGPT trusts publishers.

The Video Gap Is Massive: AI Overviews cites video at 34% (the #2 category). ChatGPT cites 0%. Video is a Google play, not a ChatGPT play.

Government Is the Baseline: All three platforms trust .gov sources at similar rates (11-17%). That's the floor. Everything above it diverges.

ChatGPT Is More Stable: Google's finance citations show higher volatility (75-95%) vs. ChatGPT (65%). Google is experimenting; ChatGPT has conviction.

The Interface Explains the Trust Model: AI Overviews sits atop search results where users browse and learn. Chat interfaces serve users who want direct, data-backed answers. The UX drives the source mix.

Download the Full Report

Download the full AI Search Report — Finance AI Citations: How ChatGPT and Google Define Trust Differently

Download PDF

Click the button above to download the full report in PDF format.

Published on January 15, 2025

BrightEdge

Presents

Celebrating Excellence in Search, Content Strategy, and Digital Marketing Innovation

Nominate your team, colleagues, or yourself for BrightEdge’s premier awards program
Submissions open January 13, 2026. Winners announced live at Spark Live 2026

Nominations Closed

Recognizing Game-Changers in the BrightEdge Community

The Edgie Awards honor the achievements of brands, agencies, and individuals who are leading the way with search and content strategy. These awards recognize BrightEdge customers who have delivered measurable business impact through search, content, and AI-driven strategies. Whether you've driven breakthrough revenue growth, pioneered innovative AI implementations, or elevated SEO's strategic value across your organization, this is your moment to shine!

Award Categories

Individual Awards

Celebrating exceptional people driving search and digital marketing excellence

🏆Michael Kirchhoff Technical SEO Award

For individuals exemplifying outstanding SEO expertise, character, and community contribution

🎯Digital Marketer Award

For marketers demonstrating expertise beyond search while driving measurable multi-channel results

📣SEO Evangelist Award

For individuals or small teams excelling at educating and driving SEO adoption

🌟Community Ambassador Award

For active contributors who strengthen the BrightEdge community

Organization Awards

Celebrating company-wide achievements and transformative results

💡Innovator Award

For organizations demonstrating innovative, deep, and strategic use of advanced BrightEdge capabilities

📈Performance and Results Award

For organizations driving exceptional business results through search and content strategy

🚀Elevating Award

For organizations that expanded SEO's impact horizontally and vertically within their company

🌍Best International Award

For organizations that execute successful technical SEO efforts across multiple countries with measurable results

Submission Requirements

Submissions should include both quantitative and qualitative results. Feel free to send supplementary links, charts, or documents to event_planning@brightedge.com

Timeline

Submissions Open
13th Jan 2026
Submissions Close
20th Feb 2026
Finalist Notifications
23rd Feb 2026
Winner Announcement
Live at Spark Live 2026

Important Notes

How the Edgie Awards work this year:

To match our roadshow format, we're recognizing Edgie Award winners regionally based on where your company is headquartered, so you can compete and celebrate with your local peers.

Winners Announcement:

Winners will be announced at the Spark Live event closest to where you're attending. San Francisco winners will be celebrated on March 10, while New York will host our main awards ceremony on March 12 with a live broadcast for winners attending virtually or from international locations.

Privacy & Confidentiality:

BrightEdge will not mention specific details of your submission without your prior written approval. Sensitive metrics can be shared confidentially (judges under NDA).

Multiple Submissions:

You may nominate individuals or companies in multiple categories, or submit multiple campaigns within the same category if they represent distinct efforts.

Nominee Consent:

For individual awards, we recommend obtaining the nominee's consent before submitting.

Ready to Nominate?

Showcase your achievements. Celebrate your team. Join the ranks of BrightEdge excellence.

For questions, contact us at event_planning@brightedge.com or reach out to your BrightEdge Customer Success Manager for assistance with nominations and submissions.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Edgie Awards celebrate outstanding achievements by BrightEdge customers in SEO, content performance, and AI-driven search strategies, presented during SPARK Live 2026.

Winners are announced live at SPARK Live 2026 events in San Francisco on March 10, 2026, and New York on March 12, 2026. We encourage nominees and their teams to attend in person where possible. For those unable to attend, the New York ceremony will include a live broadcast option.

Edgie Awards are open to BrightEdge customers who demonstrate exceptional results in search, content, or AI-driven strategies. Attendance at Spark Live is encouraged but not required to be eligible for nomination or recognition.

Submissions open on January 13, 2026 and close on February 20, 2026. Finalists will be notified ahead of Spark Live 2026.

Visit the dedicated Edgie Awards webpage featuring a nomination form to submit directly or contact your Customer Success Manager (CSM) for assistance. While filling out the form, you will be asked to share a brief overview of the challenge, the BrightEdge capabilities used, and the results achieved.

A brief overview of the challenge you addressed, how you used BrightEdge, and the results achieved. Metrics, examples, or supporting materials are encouraged but not required at submission.

Submissions must include both quantitative and qualitative results, and may feature supplementary links, charts, or documents sent to event_planning@brightedge.com. 

BrightEdge will not share submission details publicly without prior written approval.

Two main categories exist: Individual (where you or a colleague can be nominated) and Organization (for company-wide achievements). Each has four sub-categories, with full details on the Edgie Awards webpage.

Yes, nominations are complimentary for all BrightEdge customers.

Winners gain public recognition at SPARK Live ceremonies, a prestigious Edgie Award trophy, certificate, BrightEdge swag, photos with our executive leadership, and exclusive networking opportunities with industry leaders.

Yes. Attendance at Spark Live is encouraged but not required to be eligible for an Edgie Award. Winners who are unable to attend will still be recognized.

We recommend providing clear, concise details for each section. Bullet points are acceptable, as long as they clearly describe the challenge, BrightEdge usage, results, and impact. Supporting metrics and examples strengthens submissions.

Submissions are reviewed by an internal panel based on demonstrated business impact, effective use of BrightEdge capabilities, innovation in search and content strategy, and overall execution quality.

Yes. You may submit nominations across multiple categories or submit more than one campaign, provided each submission represents a distinct effort.

Healthcare AI Citations: How ChatGPT and Google Define Trust Differently

As we head into the new year, we're taking a closer look at critical YMYL categories — starting with Healthcare. When AI answers health questions, accuracy isn't optional. So who does each platform actually trust?

Data Collected

Using BrightEdge AI Catalyst™, we analyzed healthcare citations across ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overviews over 14 weeks (October 2025 – January 2026) to understand:

  • Which source types each platform cites for healthcare queries
  • How citation patterns differ by query type (symptoms, definitions, treatments)
  • Platform stability and volatility in healthcare citations
  • Where Google is experimenting with new content formats like video

Key Finding

ChatGPT and Google don't agree on what makes a healthcare source authoritative. ChatGPT pulls 27% of its healthcare citations from government sources (.gov) — and just 1% from elite hospital systems. Google AI Overviews flips that entirely: 33% from elite hospital systems, only 10% from government. Same YMYL category, fundamentally different trust signals.

The Trust Gap: Different Platforms, Different Authorities

ChatGPT Trusts the Institution. Google Trusts the Brand.

When we analyzed where healthcare citations actually come from, the platforms diverged sharply:

Source TypeChatGPTGoogle AI Overviews
Government (.gov)27%10%
Elite Hospital Systems1%33%
Medical Specialty Orgs17%2%
Consumer Health Media7%6%

ChatGPT leans heavily on government sources like CDC, NIH, and FDA — plus medical specialty organizations (professional associations for cardiology, oncology, orthopedics, etc.).

Google AI Overviews goes all-in on elite hospital systems — major academic medical centers and nationally-ranked health systems.

Neither platform relies heavily on consumer health media (popular health information websites). Both prefer institutional authority — they just define it differently.

The Government vs. Consumer Ratio

How much does each platform prefer official sources over consumer health websites?

  • ChatGPT: 4.2:1 ratio (strongly favors official sources)
  • Google AI Mode: 1.8:1 ratio
  • Google AI Overviews: 2.3:1 ratio

ChatGPT is twice as likely to cite .gov sources over consumer health media compared to Google.

Query Type Matters: Different Questions, Different Sources

Symptom Queries Show the Widest Gap

When users ask about symptoms — arguably the most sensitive healthcare searches — the platforms diverge dramatically:

Platform% Citations from Major Hospital Systems
ChatGPT57%
Google AI Mode18%
Google AI Overviews20%

ChatGPT concentrates trust heavily for symptom queries, pulling nearly 3x more citations from major hospital systems than Google does.

Definition Queries

For "what is" style educational queries:

PlatformElite HospitalsGovernmentOther
ChatGPT36%15%29%
Google AI Mode12%11%54%
Google AI Overviews16%12%45%

Treatment Queries

For queries about treatments and procedures:

PlatformElite HospitalsGovernmentOther
ChatGPT52%8%19%
Google AI Mode17%15%46%
Google AI Overviews20%11%44%

The Pattern

ChatGPT concentrates citations on fewer, more authoritative sources — especially for sensitive queries like symptoms and treatments. Google distributes citations across a wider mix of sources.

The Volatility Factor: Stability vs. Experimentation

ChatGPT Has Conviction. Google Is Testing.

Beyond source preferences, the platforms differ dramatically in stability:

MetricChatGPTGoogle AI ModeGoogle AI Overviews
Citation Volatility (CV)2.1%17.1%20.2%
Week-to-Week Churn0.42pp2.52pp6.94pp

Google's healthcare citations are 8-10x more volatile than ChatGPT's. What you see in Google AI results today may shift significantly. ChatGPT's citations have remained remarkably stable over our tracking period.

What This Means

ChatGPT appears to have made decisions about healthcare authority and is sticking with them. Google is still actively experimenting — testing different source mixes, adjusting weights, and iterating on what works.

Google's Video Experiment

Where Is Google Testing Video in Healthcare?

One notable difference: Google is experimenting with video content for healthcare answers. ChatGPT isn't citing any video.

  • ChatGPT: 0% video citations
  • Google AI Overviews: 2.7% video citations

But the volatility tells the real story: video citations in Google AI Overviews swung more than 50 percentage points over just three months (ranging from 22% to 73% of certain result sets). Google hasn't decided whether video belongs in YMYL healthcare content.

Which Query Types Trigger Video?

When Google does cite video for healthcare, it's concentrated in certain query types:

Query Type% of Video Citations
General Health51.5%
Symptom Exploration21%
Condition-Specific11.4%
Definition/Educational5.4%
Treatment/Remedies5%

Video shows up most on general health queries — not the most sensitive clinical content. Google appears to be testing carefully, starting with lower-stakes queries before expanding to symptoms and treatments.

Citation Priority: What Users See First

Different Platforms Lead With Different Sources

Beyond which sources get cited, we analyzed which sources appear first (lower rank = higher priority):

ChatGPT Citation Priority:

  1. Crisis/Support Resources (avg rank 1.7)
  2. Wikipedia (1.8)
  3. Medical Specialty Orgs (1.8)
  4. Elite Hospitals (2.0)
  5. Government (2.3)

Google AI Overviews Citation Priority:

  1. Elite Hospitals (avg rank 3.3)
  2. Wikipedia (3.4)
  3. Medical Specialty Orgs (4.3)
  4. Government (5.0)
  5. Consumer Media (6.3)

ChatGPT puts crisis and support resources first — a deliberate safety choice. Google leads with elite hospital content.

What This Means for Healthcare Marketers

Track Citations Across Both Platforms

ChatGPT and Google have fundamentally different trust signals. You may be winning citations in one platform and invisible in the other. Measure both.

Query Type Matters

Symptom queries, definitions, and treatment searches all pull from different source mixes. Understand which query types your content targets — and who gets cited for each.

Know Your Source Advantage

  • Hospital systems: You have an edge on Google AI Overviews
  • Government agencies: You have an edge on ChatGPT
  • Medical specialty organizations: You have an edge on ChatGPT
  • Consumer health media: Neither platform favors you heavily

Google Is Still Testing — ChatGPT Has Decided

Google's 10x higher volatility means your visibility there may shift. ChatGPT is more stable — what you see now is likely what you'll get. Plan accordingly.

Video Is Unsettled

If you're considering video for healthcare content, know that Google's approach is still evolving rapidly. The 50+ percentage point swings suggest this is early experimentation, not settled strategy.

Technical Methodology

Data Source: BrightEdge AI Catalyst™

Analysis Approach:

  • Healthcare URL-prompt pairs analyzed across three platforms: ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews
  • 14 weeks of citation data tracked (October 2025 – January 2026)
  • Source categorization by type: Government (.gov), Elite Hospital Systems, Medical Specialty Organizations, Consumer Health Media, Video, Crisis/Support, Wikipedia, and others
  • Query intent categorization: Definition, Symptom, Treatment, Condition-Specific, Find Care/Provider, General Health
  • Volatility measured using coefficient of variation (CV) and week-over-week percentage point changes

Data Volume:

  • ChatGPT: 13,181 URL-prompt pairs
  • Google AI Mode: 52,876 URL-prompt pairs
  • Google AI Overviews: 47,500 URL-prompt pairs

Measurement Period:

  • Citation tracking: October 2025 – January 2026
  • Volatility analysis: 14-week rolling window

Key Takeaways

  1. Different Trust Anchors: ChatGPT pulls 27% from government, 1% from elite hospitals. Google AI Overviews pulls 33% from elite hospitals, 10% from government. Fundamentally different definitions of healthcare authority.
  2. Symptom Queries Diverge Most: ChatGPT cites major hospital systems for 57% of symptom queries vs. Google's 18-20%. ChatGPT concentrates trust; Google distributes it.
  3. ChatGPT Is 10x More Stable: Google's healthcare citations show 20% volatility vs. ChatGPT's 2%. Google is experimenting; ChatGPT has decided.
  4. Neither Trusts Consumer Health Media: Both platforms prefer official sources over popular health websites by 2-4x ratios.
  5. Video Is Google's Experiment: Google is testing video (2.7% of citations) while ChatGPT cites none. But 50pp swings suggest Google hasn't settled on whether video belongs in YMYL healthcare.
  6. Query Type Determines Source Mix: Different query intents (symptoms vs. definitions vs. treatments) pull from different source distributions. One-size-fits-all optimization won't work.

Download the Full Report

Download the full AI Search Report — Healthcare AI Citations: How ChatGPT and Google Define Trust Differently

Download PDF

Click the button above to download the full report in PDF format.

Published on January 08, 2026

2026 SEO Kickoff: Planning Your SEO Strategy for AI Search

Exclusive 2026 survey insights and proven tactics to adapt your SEO for AI search success

This webinar originally aired on January 28, 2026. Watch the full recording to learn how marketers are preparing for AI-infused search in 2026.

AI has fundamentally changed how search works, but it has not replaced SEO.

From Google AI Overviews and expanded “People also ask” experiences to the rapid adoption of ChatGPT and generative search platforms, marketers are navigating a more complex visibility landscape than ever before. The risk is not AI itself. The real risk is reacting with fragmented strategies that dilute focus and performance.

In this on-demand webinar, BrightEdge experts break down what is actually changing in search, what continues to drive results, and how leading teams are adapting their SEO strategies for an AI-infused future without rebuilding everything from scratch. 

What you’ll learn:

  • What the latest BrightEdge survey data reveals about how SEO teams are planning for 2026
  • Which SEO fundamentals still drive performance and what’s changed
  • How BrightEdge enables a unified approach to SEO and AI search optimization across platforms

Why watch:

  • Gain clarity in a rapidly changing search landscape without chasing every new platform or tactic
  • Validate your SEO strategy with real-world data and examples from teams navigating AI-infused search today
  • Save time and resources by learning how leading marketers avoid fragmented approaches to AI optimization
  • Proven value: Rated 4 out of 5 for overall satisfaction and relevance, with 562 marketers attending live

Featured Speakers:

elizabethDave McAnally

Watch On-Demand Webinar

* indicates required

 
 

Finance and AI Overviews: How Google Applies YMYL Principles to Financial Search

Last week we covered Healthcare; this week we focus on Finance (YMYL). We analyzed finance keywords across three years. Google applies similar rules, adapted to financial searches.

Data Collected

We analyzed finance keywords at the same point each December across three years to understand:

  • Year-over-year changes in AI Overview deployment rates
  • Query type patterns (educational vs. transactional vs. real-time data)
  • Category-level expansion patterns within finance
  • Comparisons to Healthcare AI Overview deployment

Key Finding

Google draws clear lines in Finance. AI Overview treatment depends entirely on query type: educational queries like "what is an IRA" hit 91% coverage — nearly identical to Healthcare. But real-time price queries like stock tickers sit at just 7%. And just like Healthcare, Google pulled back from local "near me" queries entirely. Same YMYL principles, adapted to different search behaviors.

Google Draws Clear Lines in FinanceGoogle Draws Clear Lines in Finance

AI Treatment Depends on Query Type

Unlike Healthcare's broad 89% coverage across clinical content, Finance shows distinct zones based on what users are trying to accomplish:

  • Educational queries ("what is an IRA"): 91% have AI Overviews
  • Rate and planning queries: 67% have AI Overviews
  • Stock tickers and real-time prices: 7% have AI Overviews

Google uses AI where synthesis adds value — explaining concepts, comparing options, guiding decisions. For live market data where real-time accuracy matters, Google keeps AI out entirely.

The Real-Time Data Decision

Stock ticker queries represent a deliberate exclusion. Queries like "AAPL stock," "Tesla price," and "Microsoft share price" request real-time price data, not information synthesis.

Google's treatment has been consistent:

  • December 2023: 5% had AI Overviews
  • December 2024: 4% had AI Overviews
  • December 2025: 7% have AI Overviews

This isn't a gap Google is trying to close — it's a line they've drawn. Real-time accuracy matters more than AI synthesis for price lookups.

Where Finance Matches Healthcare

Educational Content Gets the Same Treatment

Google treats educational queries nearly identically across both YMYL industries:

  • Finance "what is" queries: 91% have AI Overviews
  • Healthcare "what is" queries: 95% have AI Overviews

Examples of finance educational queries with AI Overviews:

  • "what is an IRA"
  • "how does compound interest work"
  • "what is dollar cost averaging"
  • "what is a derivative"
  • "ebitda meaning"
  • "what is a bond"

Planning and Guidance Content

Queries seeking financial planning guidance show similar patterns to healthcare treatment queries:

  • Retirement planning queries: 61% have AI Overviews
  • Rate information queries: 67% have AI Overviews
  • Tax-related queries: 55% have AI Overviews

Examples include "rmd table," "capital gains tax rate," "traditional ira vs roth ira," and "what is long term care insurance."

The Local Pullback — Same Story as Healthcare

Google Removed AI From Local Finance Queries

Last week's biggest Healthcare finding: Google pulled AI Overviews from "near me" queries entirely, dropping from 100% coverage in 2023 to 0% in 2025.

Finance shows the same pattern:

  • December 2023 (SGE Labs): 90% of local finance queries had AI Overviews
  • December 2024: 0% of local finance queries had AI Overviews
  • December 2025: ~10% of local finance queries have AI Overviews

The only local query retaining AI coverage is "tap to pay atm near me" — which is more educational about the feature than truly local intent.

Queries Google Removed AI From

  • "Chase bank near me" — NO AIO
  • "Wells Fargo near me" — NO AIO
  • "Bank of America financial center near me" — NO AIO
  • "Financial advisors near me" — NO AIO
  • "ATM near me" — NO AIO
  • "Moneygram near me" — NO AIO
  • "Edward Jones near me" — NO AIO

The Implication

Google tested AI on local queries in both Healthcare and Finance during the SGE Labs period. After broader rollout, they pulled back from both. For "near me" queries, it's all about local pack and maps presence — no AI layer to compete with.

Where AI Is Expanding Fast

Post-Google I/O Growth Trajectory

The SGE-to-AIO transition in May 2024 reset the baseline. Since then, Finance educational and planning content has expanded rapidly.

Post-Google I/O growth (June 2024 → December 2025):

  • Educational queries: 70% → 91% (+21 percentage points)
  • Fixed income (bonds, CDs, treasury bills): 28% → 72% (+44 percentage points)
  • Rate information (mortgage rates, HELOC rates): 26% → 67% (+41 percentage points)
  • Tax questions: 0% → 55% (+55 percentage points)

Category Examples

Educational queries include "what is an IRA," "what is dollar cost averaging," "how does compound interest work," and "ebitda meaning."

Fixed income queries include "what is a bond," "treasury bill rates," "cd rates," and "fixed income investments."

Rate information queries include "interest rates today," "current mortgage rates," "heloc rates," "money market rates," and "home equity loan rates."

Tax queries include "capital gains tax rate," "federal tax brackets," and "tax free municipal bonds."

What This Growth Means

If you rank for educational finance content — retirement planning guides, tax explainers, investment education — you're now competing for citations, not just clicks. Traffic may decline even if rankings hold steady, because AI is answering these queries directly.

What Google Keeps AI Out Of

Google has drawn clear lines around query types where AI Overviews don't appear:

Real-Time Price Data

  • Individual stock tickers: 7% have AI Overviews
  • Market indices: Low AI coverage
  • Live price queries: Traditional results dominate

Examples: "AAPL stock," "Tesla price," "dow jones industrial average today," "S&P 500 futures"

Google recognizes that real-time accuracy matters more than AI synthesis for price lookups. These high-volume queries still play by traditional ranking rules.

Local Services

  • "Chase bank near me" — NO AIO
  • "Wells Fargo near me" — NO AIO
  • "Financial advisors near me" — NO AIO
  • "ATM near me" — NO AIO

Google determined that local pack results and Maps integrations serve users better than AI summaries for finding bank branches, ATMs, and financial advisors.

Calculator and Tool Queries

  • Finance calculator queries: 9% have AI Overviews
  • Examples without AI: "401k calculator," "mortgage calculator," "investment calculator," "compound interest calculator"

Users want interactive tools, not AI explanations. Google serves the tools directly.

Brand and Login Queries

  • Brand login queries: 0-4% have AI Overviews
  • Examples: "fidelity login," "charles schwab login," "td ameritrade login," "robinhood"

Navigational queries go straight to the destination — no AI summary needed.

Finance vs Healthcare: Side-by-Side Comparison

||Healthcare|Finance|
|Educational Query AIO Rate|95%|91%|
|Local "Near Me" AIO Rate|0%|~10%|
|Real-Time Data AIO Rate|N/A|7% (tickers)|
|Overall Trajectory|Near saturation (89%)|Rapid expansion|
|YoY Growth (2024→2025)|+4.6pp|Growing fast in educational categories|

The pattern is consistent: Google uses AI where synthesis adds value (education, explanation, planning) and keeps AI out where real-time accuracy or local relevance matters (live prices, market data, "near me" searches).

Technical Methodology

Data Source: BrightEdge Generative Parser™

Analysis Approach:

  • Finance keywords analyzed at equivalent points in December 2023, December 2024, and December 2025
  • AI Overview presence tracked by category (L1/L2 taxonomy) and query type
  • Query types segmented: educational, rate/planning, real-time/transactional, local intent
  • Local intent queries identified and tracked separately
  • Trendline data analyzed for post-I/O growth trajectory

Measurement Periods:

  • December 2023 snapshot: December 29, 2023
  • December 2024 snapshot: December 29, 2024
  • December 2025 snapshot: December 26, 2025
  • Trendline data: Daily tracking November 2023 through December 2025

Key Takeaways

  • Google Draws Clear Lines: AI treatment in Finance depends entirely on query type — 91% for educational, 67% for rates/planning, 7% for stock tickers.
  • Educational Content Matches Healthcare: "What is" queries hit 91% AI Overview coverage in Finance — nearly identical to Healthcare's 95%.
  • Real-Time Data Stays Out: Stock tickers, market indices, and live price queries sit at 7% AI coverage. Google keeps AI out where real-time accuracy matters.
  • Local Pullback Confirmed: Google removed AI from "near me" finance queries just like Healthcare. Bank branches, ATMs, and financial advisors "near me" show minimal AI coverage.
  • Rapid Expansion Underway: Educational and planning categories grew 20-55 percentage points in one year. Tax, fixed income, and rate queries are expanding fast.
  • Same Principles, Different Application: Both YMYL industries show identical patterns — AI for education, traditional results for local and real-time data.

Industry Implications:

This research confirms that Google applies consistent YMYL principles across industries while adapting to category-specific search behaviors.

For financial services marketers, the implications are significant:

Educational content = New metrics. Retirement planning guides, tax explainers, investment education, "what is" content — expect AI Overviews on most of these queries. If traffic declined while rankings held steady, AI — not your content — is likely the cause. Track citations, not just clicks.

Real-time data = Traditional rankings. Stock prices, market indices, ticker lookups — Google keeps AI out. These high-volume queries still play by traditional ranking rules. Position tracking tells the full story here.

Local "near me" = Maps territory. Bank branches, ATMs, financial advisors — no AI layer to compete with. Google Business Profile optimization and local pack presence drive these results.

The expansion continues. Unlike Healthcare (near saturation at 89%), Finance educational content is still growing rapidly. Categories at 55-70% today could reach 80-90% by late 2026. Plan your measurement strategy accordingly.

Two metrics now matter. For educational and planning content, track AI citation presence alongside traditional rankings. For real-time and local queries, traditional position tracking still tells the full story.

Same strategy, different emphasis. Quality content and technical SEO excellence work across both AI and traditional results. Understanding WHERE your visibility lives helps you measure success correctly and allocate resources appropriately.

Download the Full Report

Download the full AI Search Report —Finance and AI Overviews: How Google Applies YMYL Principles to Financial Search

Download PDF

Click the button above to download the full report in PDF format.

Published on January 03, 2026

Healthcare and AI Overviews: How Google Sharpened Its Approach Over Three Years

Using BrightEdge Generative Parser™, we tracked healthcare keywords over three annual snapshots (Dec 2023, 2024, and 2025). The data shows Google increasing AI-related content in clinical topics, while reducing focus on local and sensitive health queries.

Data Collected

We analyzed healthcare keywords at the same point each December across three years to understand:

  • Year-over-year changes in AI Overview deployment rates
  • Query type patterns (clinical vs. local vs. sensitive topics)
  • Specialty-level expansion patterns within healthcare
  • Stability and volatility trends over time

Key Finding

Google expanded AI Overview coverage in healthcare from 59% to 89% over two years — but drew clear boundaries. Clinical content is now near-saturated (93-100% coverage), while local "near me" queries saw a complete reversal: from 100% AI Overview presence in 2023 to 0% today. Google isn't treating all healthcare queries the same. They're matching AI presence to query type — and they've stabilized their approach.

The Three-Year Transformation

December 2023: 59% of Keywords Had AI Overviews

In late 2023, Google was still in expansion mode with AI Overviews (then called SGE). Healthcare showed moderate coverage, with roughly six in ten queries triggering an AI-generated response.

This was the testing phase. Google was learning where AI helped users and where it created problems — particularly in a Your Money Your Life (YMYL) category like healthcare.

December 2024: 84% of Keywords Had AI Overviews

The biggest expansion happened between 2023 and 2024. AI Overview presence jumped 25 percentage points in a single year as Google rolled out the feature broadly following Google I/O 2024.

Healthcare saw aggressive growth across most clinical categories during this period.

December 2025: 89% of Keywords Have AI Overviews

Growth continued but decelerated significantly — just 5 percentage points year-over-year. This suggests Google has reached near-saturation for the query types it intends to cover.

The slower growth isn't hesitation. It's refinement. Google drew lines on where AI belongs in healthcare search.

The Intent Interpretation

The 30 percentage point expansion from 2023 to 2025 wasn't uniform. It reflects Google's learning about healthcare search intent:

  • Clinical information intent → Heavy AI treatment (symptoms, treatments, conditions)
  • Local provider intent → AI removed entirely (Google reversed course)
  • Sensitive health topics → AI consistently excluded (crisis, mental health)

Google is matching SERP treatment to query risk profile, not just search volume or category.

Where Google Went All-In: Clinical Content

Query Type Breakdown (December 2025)
Treatment and procedure queries now show 100% AI Overview presence — up from 45% in 2023. This represents a 55 percentage point increase.

Pain-related queries show 98% AI Overview presence — up from 58% in 2023. This represents a 40 percentage point increase.

Symptoms and conditions queries show 93% AI Overview presence — up from 57% in 2023. This represents a 36 percentage point increase.

Medical coding queries (ICD-10, CPT) show 90% AI Overview presence — up from 67% in 2023. This represents a 23 percentage point increase.

What This Means for Clinical Content
If you're measuring organic traffic on treatment pages, symptom guides, or condition explainers — and seeing declines while rankings hold steady — AI Overviews are likely the cause.

A Position 1 ranking on "rotator cuff surgery recovery" doesn't deliver the same traffic it did in 2023. The AI Overview answers the query before users reach organic results.

The Specialty Breakdown

  • Google's expansion varied significantly by medical specialty. Core clinical specialties saw the highest coverage:
  • Genetic/Genomic content: 97% have AI Overviews (up from 63% in 2023)
  • Cardiology content: 96% have AI Overviews (up from 63% in 2023)
  • Urology content: 96% have AI Overviews (up from 68% in 2023)
  • Gastroenterology content: 94% have AI Overviews (up from 41% in 2023)
  • Orthopedics content: 94% have AI Overviews (up from 63% in 2023)
  • Neurology content: 89% have AI Overviews (up from 64% in 2023)
  • Lower coverage categories include:
  • Primary Care content: 74% have AI Overviews (up from 66% in 2023)
  • Mental Health/Behavioral content: 63% have AI Overviews (up from 58% in 2023)
  • Eating Disorders content: 63% have AI Overviews (up from 32% in 2023)
  • The pattern: clinical specialties with clear diagnostic and treatment pathways saw the most aggressive expansion. Categories intersecting with sensitive topics or local intent saw more conservative treatment.

Where Google Pulled Back: The Reversal Story

Local "Near Me" Queries: 100% → 0%

This is the most significant finding in the data. Google completely reversed its approach to local healthcare searches.

  • December 2023: 100% of local/provider intent queries had AI Overviews
  • December 2024: 14% of local/provider intent queries had AI Overviews
  • December 2025: 0% of local/provider intent queries have AI Overviews

Queries affected include searches like "dermatologist near me," "cardiologist near me," "pediatric dentist near me," and "best family doctor near me."

Google tested AI Overviews on these queries. Then removed them entirely.

Why This Matters

User-Generated Content
For healthcare practices, clinics, and hospital systems: your local SEO investment still pays off. Google has decided — at least for now — that local healthcare provider searches should be handled by traditional local results (Maps, local pack, organic listings) rather than AI summaries.

The queries that drive new patient acquisition remain traditional SEO territory.

Visual and Imaging Content: 45% → 30%

Queries seeking medical images, X-rays, or diagnostic visuals also saw Google pull back:

  • December 2023: 45% had AI Overviews
  • December 2025: 30% have AI Overviews

Queries like "broken ankle x-ray," "MRI results interpretation," and "skin cancer pictures" don't lend themselves to text-based AI summaries. Google recognized this and reduced coverage.

This creates an opportunity: image-rich medical content faces less AI competition than text-based clinical content.

Where Google Consistently Excludes AI

Some healthcare topics have shown zero or near-zero AI Overview presence across all three years. Google has clearly made policy decisions to keep AI out of these areas:

Consistently Excluded (0% AI Overviews)

  • Self-harm and suicide-related queries
  • Specific eating disorder names (anorexia, bulimia)
  • Crisis intervention terminology
  • Addiction-related queries

Consistently Low Coverage

  • Mental health crisis terminology
  • Abuse-related queries
  • Visual diagnostic content

The Implication

If your content focuses on sensitive mental health topics, traditional SEO fundamentals still apply. Rankings matter. Featured snippets matter. AI isn't intercepting these users — Google has determined that human-curated results are more appropriate.

The Stability Factor: Volatility Is Over

Early 2024: High Volatility

If your content focuses on sensitive mental health topics, traditional SEO fundamentals still apply. Rankings matter. Featured snippets matter. AI isn't intercepting these users — Google has determined that human-curated results are more appropriate.

Late 2025: Stable Deployment

By late 2025, monthly volatility dropped to approximately 5 percentage points. Google has settled into a steady state.

What This Means for Planning

The wild experimentation phase is over. What you see now is Google's established approach to healthcare AI Overviews. You can plan content strategy around these patterns with reasonable confidence they'll persist.

Search Volume Analysis

AI Overview deployment in healthcare does not significantly vary by search volume:

  • High volume keywords (100K+ monthly searches): 89% have AI Overviews
  • Medium volume keywords (10K-100K monthly searches): 88% have AI Overviews
  • Low volume keywords (1K-10K monthly searches): 89% have AI Overviews
  • Very low volume keywords (under 1K monthly searches): 100% have AI Overviews

Google isn't reserving AI Overviews for high-traffic queries. Even long-tail, low-volume medical queries now predominantly feature AI-generated responses.

The decision factor isn't volume — it's query type and intent.

Technical Methodology

Data Source: BrightEdge Generative Parser™

Analysis Approach:

  • Healthcare keywords analyzed at equivalent points in December 2023, December 2024, and December 2025
  • AI Overview presence tracked by specialty area (L2 taxonomy) and query type
  • Query intent patterns categorized by clinical, local, sensitive, and visual content types
  • Stability measured by monthly variance in AI Overview deployment rates

Measurement Periods:

  • December 2023 snapshot: December 22, 2023
  • December 2024 snapshot: December 22, 2024
  • December 2025 snapshot: December 22, 2025
  • Trendline data: Daily tracking November 2023 through December 2025

All figures expressed as percentages to protect proprietary dataset composition.

Key Takeaways

  • The Coverage Expansion: Healthcare AI Overview presence grew from 59% to 89% over two years — a 30 percentage point increase. Most growth occurred between 2023 and 2024.
  • The Clinical Saturation: Treatment queries (100%), pain-related queries (98%), and symptom queries (93%) are now near-fully covered by AI Overviews. Clinical content is AI territory.
  • The Local Reversal: "Near me" and provider-finding queries went from 100% AI Overview coverage in 2023 to 0% in 2025. Google completely reversed course on local healthcare search.
  • The Sensitivity Boundaries: Self-harm, eating disorder names, crisis terms, and addiction queries remain consistently excluded from AI Overviews across all three years.
  • The Specialty Pattern: Clinical specialties (Cardiology, Gastro, Ortho) show 94-97% coverage. Mental health and primary care show 63-74% coverage.
  • The Stability Shift: Monthly volatility dropped from ~20 percentage points in early 2024 to ~5 percentage points in late 2025. Google's approach has stabilized.

Industry Implications:

This research confirms that Google's AI Overview strategy for healthcare has moved from experimentation to established policy. The testing phase produced clear conclusions that now govern deployment.

For healthcare marketers and SEO professionals, the implications are significant:

The landscape has bifurcated. Clinical information queries are AI territory — expect AI Overviews on nearly every symptom, treatment, or condition query. Local provider queries remain traditional SEO territory — Google removed AI entirely.

Traffic declines may not indicate content problems. If your clinical content shows declining traffic while rankings hold steady, AI Overviews — not content quality — are likely the cause. Adjust your success metrics accordingly.

Local SEO still delivers. For practices, clinics, and hospital systems focused on patient acquisition, Google Business Profile optimization and local search fundamentals still drive results. Google kept AI out of these queries.

Sensitive content follows traditional rules. Mental health crisis content, eating disorder resources, and addiction support pages compete in a traditional SERP environment. E-E-A-T signals and authoritative sourcing remain your primary levers.

Two metrics now matter. For clinical content, track AI citation presence alongside traditional rankings. For local content, traditional position tracking still tells the full story.

The system has stabilized. Unlike the volatile deployment of early 2024, Google's current approach appears settled. Plan your 2026 strategy around these patterns with confidence.

Download the Full Report

Download the full AI Search Report — Healthcare and AI Overviews: How Google Sharpened Its Approach Over Three Years

Download PDF

Click the button above to download the full report in PDF format.

Published on December 24, 2025

Google’s AI-Generated Responses to Health Queries Aren’t Very Helpful — Yet

English, British
News Item Title
Google’s AI-Generated Responses to Health Queries Aren’t Very Helpful — Yet
News Item Author Name
eMarketer
News Item Published Date
News Item Summary

The article highlights how Google’s AI-generated responses for health queries often fall short for users, with only about a quarter reporting useful answers. It ties in BrightEdge data showing AI Overviews are appearing more frequently on complex informational searches and notes a significant drop in click-through rates in healthcare categories, reinforcing the need for brands to rethink content structure and visibility in an AI-driven search landscape.

News Item Link
https://www.emarketer.com/content/google-s-ai-generated-responses-users--health-queries-aren-t-very-helpful-yet
Show as Featured News
Off

Google Search Grows Stronger in the AI Age

English, British
News Item Title
Google Search Grows Stronger in the AI Age
News Item Author Name
Hospitality.today
News Item Published Date
News Item Summary

The article explores how Google search continues to grow in reach despite AI Overviews, citing BrightEdge data showing a 49% year-over-year increase in impressions since launch. While click-through rates are declining, the analysis highlights how visibility and engagement remain strong, pushing brands to rethink content for AI-powered discovery.

News Item Link
https://www.hospitality.today/article/google-search-grows-stronger-in-the-ai-age
Show as Featured News
Off

ChatGPT vs. Google: BrightEdge Research Exposes a Search Split Marketers Can’t Ignore

English, British
News Item Title
ChatGPT vs. Google: BrightEdge Research Exposes a Search Split Marketers Can’t Ignore
News Item Author Name
Martech Edge
News Item Published Date
News Item Summary

BrightEdge research reveals a clear split between ChatGPT’s task-focused results and Google’s information-led approach, with divergence rates of 39%–62% across industries. The article explains why brands must adapt content strategies for both models to remain visible as AI-driven discovery evolves.

News Item Link
https://martechedge.com/news/chatgpt-vs-google-brightedge-research-exposes-a-search-split-that-marketers-cant-ignore
Show as Featured News
Off
Subscribe to
,