Cloud Storage & Web Hosting,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about cloud storage & web hosting — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, Google Drive owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
Google Drive is the default answer.
Named in 52% of cloud storage & web hosting answers, typically in position 3.2. Microsoft OneDrive follows at 52%, Apple iCloud at 50%.
Every brand AI names, ranked.
Visibility is the share of answers naming the brand; citation share is its slice of all brand-owned pages cited; read→cited is how often its pages convert a read into a citation.
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Google Drive | 52% | 3.2 | 19% | 26% |
| 2 | Microsoft OneDrive | 52% | 3.4 | 7% | 19% |
| 3 | Apple iCloud | 50% | 3.3 | 14% | 26% |
| 4 | Sync.com | 42% | 4.3 | 1% | 33% |
| 5 | Dropbox | 38% | 4.3 | 2% | 12% |
| 6 | Google Photos | 33% | 3.1 | 0% | — |
| 7 | Google One | 30% | 4.1 | 0% | — |
| 8 | GitHub Pages | 15% | 3.8 | 5% | 38% |
| 9 | pCloud | 15% | 5.0 | 1% | 14% |
| 10 | Backblaze | 13% | 5.3 | 2% | 18% |
| 11 | Cloudflare | 12% | 2.6 | 8% | 23% |
| 12 | Netlify | 12% | 3.4 | 1% | 20% |
| 13 | Vercel | 12% | 3.4 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Idrive | 12% | 6.6 | 0% | — |
| 15 | Namecheap | 10% | 3.7 | 0% | — |
Google Drive is named most. That is not the same as being wanted.
Being named is visibility. Underneath it, every answer describes a brand in three ways — how much it stands out, how much it belongs, and how much it is returned to. In cloud storage & web hosting, AWS leads attraction at 114 against Bluehost at 83, indexed on the category at 100.
Each whorl lights one ring per index threshold cleared. See the full cloud storage & web hosting desire edition →
The referees of cloud storage & web hosting.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering cloud storage & web hosting questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
GitHub Pages converts reads into citations. Dropbox doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? GitHub Pages converts 38% of reads; Dropbox just 12%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Google Drive | 52% | 3.2 | 19% | 26% |
| 2 | Microsoft OneDrive | 52% | 3.4 | 7% | 19% |
| 3 | Apple iCloud | 50% | 3.3 | 14% | 26% |
| 4 | Sync.com | 42% | 4.3 | 1% | 33% |
| 5 | Dropbox | 38% | 4.3 | 2% | 12% |
| 6 | Google Photos | 33% | 3.1 | 0% | — |
| 7 | Google One | 30% | 4.1 | 0% | — |
| 8 | GitHub Pages | 15% | 3.8 | 5% | 38% |
| 9 | pCloud | 15% | 5.0 | 1% | 14% |
| 10 | Backblaze | 13% | 5.3 | 2% | 18% |
| 11 | Cloudflare | 12% | 2.6 | 8% | 23% |
| 12 | Netlify | 12% | 3.4 | 1% | 20% |
| 13 | Vercel | 12% | 3.4 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Idrive | 12% | 6.6 | 0% | — |
| 15 | Namecheap | 10% | 3.7 | 0% | — |
The models do not agree on who leads.
Ask about cloud storage & web hosting and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → Google Drive, Gemini → Microsoft OneDrive, ChatGPT → Google Drive. Their top-five lists share just 50% of names.
Brands whose visibility swings most between models — the bar per model, widest gap on the right.
The data behind this chart
| Brand | Claude | Gemini | ChatGPT | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sync.com | 35% | 65% | 25% | 40pp |
| Microsoft OneDrive | 35% | 65% | 55% | 30pp |
| Google Photos | 15% | 40% | 45% | 30pp |
| Google One | 10% | 40% | 40% | 30pp |
| Apple iCloud | 35% | 60% | 55% | 25pp |
| Netlify | 0% | 25% | 10% | 25pp |
| GitHub Pages | 0% | 25% | 20% | 25pp |
| Google Drive | 40% | 60% | 55% | 20pp |
| Idrive | 15% | 20% | 0% | 20pp |
| Cloudflare | 5% | 5% | 25% | 20pp |
Structured data is what separates cited from ignored.
Of the cloud storage & web hosting pages models actually opened, how much more often each feature's pages ended up in the cited sources. Structured data is worth 36 percentage points; hard statistics pages fare 7pp worse. Measured within the read population, so selection can't flatter it.
The data behind this chart
| Feature | Pages with | Cited % | Pages without | Cited % | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structured data | 188 | 85% | 80 | 49% | +36pp |
| Named author | 137 | 83% | 131 | 64% | +19pp |
| Updated this year | 121 | 83% | 147 | 66% | +17pp |
| Comparison table | 102 | 82% | 166 | 69% | +14pp |
| Hard statistics | 63 | 68% | 205 | 76% | -7pp |
Hostinger builds pages AI can quote.
Readiness scores each brand's own pages on the structure models reward — a direct answer up front, tables, hard numbers, named authors, structured data, recency, specifications. Set against how often those pages are actually cited.
| Brand | Readiness | Pages cited | Pages profiled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostinger | 34 | 75% | 4 |
| Cloudflare | 29 | 33% | 21 |
| Google Drive | 26 | 75% | 20 |
| AWS | 24 | 33% | 9 |
| Dropbox | 20 | 29% | 7 |
| Microsoft OneDrive | 17 | 63% | 8 |
| Apple iCloud | 15 | 79% | 14 |
| pCloud | 13 | 33% | 3 |
| Netlify | 10 | 20% | 5 |
| Wasabi | 3 | 25% | 4 |
Readiness is the share of eight measurable structural signals present on a brand's profiled pages. It is a build-quality measure, not a ranking of the brand.
Nineteen more categories.
Method: 20 unbranded consumer prompts per category, spread across the buying journey, run weekly against ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. Read→cited uses Claude and ChatGPT only (Gemini does not separate the two). Correlational observations of model behaviour at the time of the run. Data from the run completed Tue, 01 Sep 2026 13:43:22 GMT.