Productivity Apps,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about productivity apps — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, Apple Notes owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
Apple Notes is the default answer.
Named in 58% of productivity apps answers, typically in position 3.3. Google Keep follows at 53%, Apple Reminders at 45%.
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 | Apple Notes | 58% | 3.3 | 10% | 21% |
| 2 | Google Keep | 53% | 4.9 | 13% | 21% |
| 3 | Apple Reminders | 45% | 4.3 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Notion | 37% | 5.3 | 3% | 20% |
| 5 | Microsoft To Do | 33% | 3.7 | 0% | — |
| 6 | Microsoft OneNote | 27% | 5.1 | 13% | 21% |
| 7 | Routine | 27% | 5.4 | 0% | — |
| 8 | Things 3 | 25% | 4.0 | 0% | — |
| 9 | Obsidian | 23% | 3.8 | 4% | 23% |
| 10 | Todoist | 23% | 3.8 | 3% | 25% |
| 11 | Google Calendar | 23% | 4.8 | 0% | — |
| 12 | Streaks | 20% | 3.8 | 1% | 100% |
| 13 | Structured | 18% | 5.5 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Google Tasks | 18% | 7.0 | 0% | — |
| 15 | TickTick | 17% | 5.2 | 3% | 25% |
Apple Notes 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 productivity apps, Google Calendar leads affinity at 115 against ClickUp at 83, indexed on the category at 100.
Each whorl lights one ring per index threshold cleared. See the full productivity apps desire edition →
The referees of productivity apps.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering productivity apps questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
Todoist converts reads into citations. Notion doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Todoist converts 25% of reads; Notion just 20%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Apple Notes | 58% | 3.3 | 10% | 21% |
| 2 | Google Keep | 53% | 4.9 | 13% | 21% |
| 3 | Apple Reminders | 45% | 4.3 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Notion | 37% | 5.3 | 3% | 20% |
| 5 | Microsoft To Do | 33% | 3.7 | 0% | — |
| 6 | Microsoft OneNote | 27% | 5.1 | 13% | 21% |
| 7 | Routine | 27% | 5.4 | 0% | — |
| 8 | Things 3 | 25% | 4.0 | 0% | — |
| 9 | Obsidian | 23% | 3.8 | 4% | 23% |
| 10 | Todoist | 23% | 3.8 | 3% | 25% |
| 11 | Google Calendar | 23% | 4.8 | 0% | — |
| 12 | Streaks | 20% | 3.8 | 1% | 100% |
| 13 | Structured | 18% | 5.5 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Google Tasks | 18% | 7.0 | 0% | — |
| 15 | TickTick | 17% | 5.2 | 3% | 25% |
All three models agree: Apple Notes.
A rare consensus — every model puts Apple Notes first, and their top-five lists overlap 43%. Winning here means winning everywhere at once.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Tasks | 5% | 10% | 40% | 35pp |
| Apple Reminders | 35% | 35% | 65% | 30pp |
| Microsoft To Do | 15% | 45% | 40% | 30pp |
| Google Calendar | 15% | 15% | 40% | 25pp |
| TickTick | 5% | 30% | 15% | 25pp |
| Apple Notes | 50% | 55% | 70% | 20pp |
| Google Keep | 45% | 50% | 65% | 20pp |
| Microsoft OneNote | 30% | 15% | 35% | 20pp |
| Things 3 | 15% | 35% | 25% | 20pp |
| Structured | 20% | 10% | 25% | 15pp |
Comparisons carry productivity apps.
Every page AI opened while answering, classified by what kind of page it is. Comparisons supply the most citations; How-to guides convert best — 96% of the ones models opened were actually cited.
The data behind this chart
| Page type | Cited | Read but not cited | Conversion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparisons | 61 | 3 | 95% |
| Listicles | 28 | 5 | 85% |
| pricing | 24 | 10 | 71% |
| Product pages | 23 | 14 | 62% |
| How-to guides | 22 | 1 | 96% |
| Community threads | 13 | 1 | 93% |
| Documentation | 11 | 6 | 65% |
| Editorial | 11 | 20 | 35% |
Structured data is what separates cited from ignored.
Of the productivity apps pages models actually opened, how much more often each feature's pages ended up in the cited sources. Structured data is worth 19 percentage points; cites its sources pages fare 36pp 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 | 204 | 78% | 81 | 59% | +19pp |
| Answer up front | 141 | 77% | 144 | 68% | +9pp |
| Comparison table | 116 | 76% | 169 | 70% | +5pp |
| Named author | 138 | 74% | 147 | 71% | +2pp |
| Updated this year | 128 | 66% | 157 | 78% | -13pp |
| Hard statistics | 55 | 62% | 230 | 75% | -13pp |
| Cites its sources | 25 | 40% | 260 | 76% | -36pp |
Calendly 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. Calendly is the widest gap: well-built pages that still aren't converting into citations.
| Brand | Readiness | Pages cited | Pages profiled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calendly | 45 | 20% | 5 |
| ClickUp | 38 | 67% | 3 |
| Apple Notes | 30 | 58% | 12 |
| Notesnook | 28 | 75% | 4 |
| Google Keep | 28 | 89% | 9 |
| Cal.com | 25 | 25% | 8 |
| Evernote | 25 | 33% | 3 |
| Habitify | 25 | 25% | 4 |
| Obsidian | 19 | 75% | 4 |
| Standard Notes | 18 | 80% | 5 |
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 productivity apps 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 Tue, 01 Sep 2026 13:41:23 GMT.