Pet Insurance,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about pet insurance — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, Petplan owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
Petplan is the default answer.
Named in 22% of pet insurance answers, typically in position 2.9. Agria follows at 18%, ManyPets at 17%.
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 | Petplan | 22% | 2.9 | 10% | 30% |
| 2 | Agria | 18% | 1.5 | 7% | 33% |
| 3 | ManyPets | 17% | 2.2 | 13% | 33% |
| 4 | More Than | 15% | 2.1 | 1% | — |
| 5 | Direct Line | 8% | 3.0 | 1% | 100% |
| 6 | Waggel | 7% | 4.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 7 | Animal Friends | 5% | 1.3 | 9% | 19% |
| 8 | BASC | 5% | 1.7 | 0% | — |
| 9 | Petgevity | 5% | 1.7 | 12% | 38% |
| 10 | Perfect Pet | 5% | 2.0 | 19% | 33% |
| 11 | RSPCA | 3% | 1.0 | 3% | 6% |
| 12 | Admiral | 3% | 2.0 | 3% | 0% |
| 13 | NFU Mutual | 3% | 2.0 | 1% | 0% |
| 14 | John Lewis | 3% | 2.5 | 1% | 0% |
| 15 | Vetsure | 3% | 3.5 | 1% | — |
Pet Insurance is decided on affinity.
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 pet insurance, Petplan leads affinity at 114 against Perfect Pet at 94, indexed on the category at 100.
Each whorl lights one ring per index threshold cleared. See the full pet insurance desire edition →
Before it answers, it goes looking for Perfect Pet.
An assistant does not answer from memory alone. It runs its own web searches first, and whoever it searches for is the shortlist it then chooses from. Across 87 searches in pet insurance, Perfect Pet is named in 50% of the ones that name a brand at all. ChatGPT Web does not report its searches, so these shares are measured against the ones that do.
These are the assistants' own searches, read from their answers — not what anyone typed into a search engine.
The referees of pet insurance.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering pet insurance questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
Petgevity converts reads into citations. John Lewis doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Petgevity converts 38% of reads; John Lewis just 0%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Petplan | 22% | 2.9 | 10% | 30% |
| 2 | Agria | 18% | 1.5 | 7% | 33% |
| 3 | ManyPets | 17% | 2.2 | 13% | 33% |
| 4 | More Than | 15% | 2.1 | 1% | — |
| 5 | Direct Line | 8% | 3.0 | 1% | 100% |
| 6 | Waggel | 7% | 4.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 7 | Animal Friends | 5% | 1.3 | 9% | 19% |
| 8 | BASC | 5% | 1.7 | 0% | — |
| 9 | Petgevity | 5% | 1.7 | 12% | 38% |
| 10 | Perfect Pet | 5% | 2.0 | 19% | 33% |
| 11 | RSPCA | 3% | 1.0 | 3% | 6% |
| 12 | Admiral | 3% | 2.0 | 3% | 0% |
| 13 | NFU Mutual | 3% | 2.0 | 1% | 0% |
| 14 | John Lewis | 3% | 2.5 | 1% | 0% |
| 15 | Vetsure | 3% | 3.5 | 1% | — |
Three models. Three different answers.
Ask about pet insurance and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → More Than, Gemini → Petplan, ChatGPT → ManyPets. Their top-five lists share just 38% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| More Than | 20% | 20% | 5% | 15pp |
| Petplan | 15% | 30% | 20% | 15pp |
| ManyPets | 10% | 15% | 25% | 15pp |
| Waggel | 5% | 15% | 0% | 15pp |
| Agria | 15% | 25% | 15% | 10pp |
| Petgevity | 10% | 0% | 5% | 10pp |
| Perfect Pet | 10% | 0% | 5% | 10pp |
| Animal Friends | 5% | 0% | 10% | 10pp |
| Direct Line | 5% | 15% | 5% | 10pp |
| Admiral | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10pp |
Editorial carry pet insurance.
Every page AI opened while answering, classified by what kind of page it is. Editorial supply the most citations; Product pages convert best — 92% of the ones models opened were actually cited.
The data behind this chart
| Page type | Cited | Read but not cited | Conversion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial | 69 | 12 | 85% |
| Product pages | 36 | 3 | 92% |
| How-to guides | 25 | 8 | 76% |
| Comparisons | 24 | 2 | 92% |
| Other | 17 | 7 | 71% |
| faq | 11 | 2 | 85% |
| Community threads | 9 | 17 | 35% |
| Documentation | 5 | 18 | 22% |
Structured data is what separates cited from ignored.
Of the pet insurance pages models actually opened, how much more often each feature's pages ended up in the cited sources. Structured data is worth 40 percentage points; hard statistics pages fare 4pp 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 | 200 | 88% | 87 | 47% | +40pp |
| Specifications | 36 | 97% | 251 | 72% | +25pp |
| Named author | 125 | 88% | 162 | 65% | +23pp |
| Answer up front | 142 | 84% | 145 | 67% | +17pp |
| Comparison table | 78 | 87% | 209 | 71% | +16pp |
| Updated this year | 107 | 80% | 180 | 72% | +8pp |
| Hard statistics | 122 | 73% | 165 | 77% | -4pp |
Scratch & Patch 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. Scratch & Patch is the widest gap: well-built pages that still aren't converting into citations.
| Brand | Readiness | Pages cited | Pages profiled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scratch & Patch | 59 | 0% | 4 |
| Admiral | 57 | 33% | 9 |
| Perfect Pet | 56 | 32% | 28 |
| Vetsure | 50 | 9% | 11 |
| Petgevity | 47 | 45% | 11 |
| CoverMyPet | 46 | 17% | 6 |
| Napier | 43 | 0% | 5 |
| Pet Protect | 41 | 27% | 11 |
| ManyPets | 34 | 14% | 50 |
| Agria | 32 | 5% | 100 |
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.
The questions pet insurance pages have to settle.
Read straight off the pages AI cited: the consumer questions cited content answers most often. Content that fails to settle these is content models have no reason to quote.
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 Mon, 07 Sep 2026 08:39:57 GMT.