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 23% of pet insurance answers, typically in position 1.8. Agria follows at 18%, ManyPets at 15%.
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 | 23% | 1.8 | 15% | 28% |
| 2 | Agria | 18% | 2.2 | 10% | 100% |
| 3 | ManyPets | 15% | 1.9 | 10% | 26% |
| 4 | More Than | 8% | 2.2 | 2% | — |
| 5 | Animal Friends | 8% | 3.8 | 8% | 0% |
| 6 | Perfect Pet | 7% | 3.3 | 16% | 33% |
| 7 | Direct Line | 7% | 3.5 | 1% | 20% |
| 8 | PDSA | 5% | 1.3 | 9% | 26% |
| 9 | Waggel | 5% | 3.3 | 0% | — |
| 10 | BASC | 3% | 1.5 | 0% | — |
| 11 | RSPCA | 3% | 1.5 | 5% | 17% |
| 12 | NFU Mutual | 3% | 2.5 | 1% | 0% |
| 13 | Petgevity | 2% | 1.0 | 8% | 43% |
| 14 | Vetsure | 2% | 2.0 | 1% | — |
| 15 | Admiral | 2% | 3.0 | 4% | — |
Pet Insurance is decided on attachment.
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, ManyPets leads attachment at 108 against Direct Line at 93, indexed on the category at 100.
Each whorl lights one ring per index threshold cleared. See the full pet insurance desire edition →
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.
Agria converts reads into citations. NFU Mutual doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Agria converts 100% of reads; NFU Mutual 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 | 23% | 1.8 | 15% | 28% |
| 2 | Agria | 18% | 2.2 | 10% | 100% |
| 3 | ManyPets | 15% | 1.9 | 10% | 26% |
| 4 | More Than | 8% | 2.2 | 2% | — |
| 5 | Animal Friends | 8% | 3.8 | 8% | 0% |
| 6 | Perfect Pet | 7% | 3.3 | 16% | 33% |
| 7 | Direct Line | 7% | 3.5 | 1% | 20% |
| 8 | PDSA | 5% | 1.3 | 9% | 26% |
| 9 | Waggel | 5% | 3.3 | 0% | — |
| 10 | BASC | 3% | 1.5 | 0% | — |
| 11 | RSPCA | 3% | 1.5 | 5% | 17% |
| 12 | NFU Mutual | 3% | 2.5 | 1% | 0% |
| 13 | Petgevity | 2% | 1.0 | 8% | 43% |
| 14 | Vetsure | 2% | 2.0 | 1% | — |
| 15 | Admiral | 2% | 3.0 | 4% | — |
Three models. Three different answers.
Ask about pet insurance and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → ManyPets, Gemini → Agria, ChatGPT → Petplan. Their top-five lists share just 22% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agria | 5% | 40% | 10% | 35pp |
| Petplan | 15% | 30% | 25% | 15pp |
| Direct Line | 0% | 15% | 5% | 15pp |
| More Than | 0% | 15% | 10% | 15pp |
| ManyPets | 20% | 10% | 15% | 10pp |
| NFU Mutual | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10pp |
| Animal Friends | 10% | 10% | 5% | 5pp |
| Perfect Pet | 10% | 5% | 5% | 5pp |
| Petgevity | 5% | 0% | 0% | 5pp |
| Scratch & Patch | 5% | 0% | 0% | 5pp |
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 |
Perfect Pet 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perfect Pet | 65 | 90% | 10 |
| Admiral | 63 | 100% | 3 |
| Pet Protect | 54 | 100% | 3 |
| Petgevity | 48 | 100% | 5 |
| ManyPets | 43 | 100% | 7 |
| Agria | 40 | 100% | 5 |
| Petplan | 38 | 100% | 9 |
| RSPCA | 25 | 80% | 5 |
| Animal Friends | 15 | 100% | 5 |
| PDSA | 13 | 67% | 6 |
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 Wed, 02 Sep 2026 10:06:10 GMT.