Converged.AI × BrandInsightAI
BrandInsightAI Insights
Health · refreshed weekly

How AI wants health insurance

Health Insurance is decided on affinity: Vitality indexes 107 there against Aviva at 98, a 9-point spread. Attachment separates almost nobody (3 points across the whole category), so being described that way is table stakes here rather than an advantage. Vitality holds the strongest overall profile, indexing 105 against the category average: credible, not first choice.

4 brands · 60 AI answers · 58 dimension scores · measured, never estimated

Attraction Standing out in the answer: named first, described as superior, magnetic and influential.
Affinity Belonging in the answer: tied to identity, values and legitimacy, not just specifications.
Attachment Staying in the answer: recommended again, dependable, easy, part of the routine.
AttractionAffinityAttachment Each whorl lights one ring per index threshold cleared (90 / 96 / 102 / 108 / 115)

100 = the average brand in the same category.100 = the average brand across every category in the index.

Health

Health Insurance

#Brand AttractionAffinityAttachment SummaryNamed in
1 Vitality: Attraction 106, Affinity 107, Attachment 99Vitality: Attraction 109, Affinity 110, Attachment 100Vitality 106109 107110 99100 Credible, not first choiceCredible, not first choice 25%
2 Bupa: Attraction 99, Affinity 98, Attachment 100Bupa: Attraction 102, Affinity 101, Attachment 102Bupa 99102 98101 100102 Average on all threeAverage on all three 43%
3 AXA: Attraction 98, Affinity 98, Attachment 102AXA: Attraction 100, Affinity 101, Attachment 103AXA 98100 98101 102103 Average on all threeAverage on all three 32%
4 Aviva: Attraction 98, Affinity 98, Attachment 99Aviva: Attraction 100, Affinity 101, Attachment 100Aviva 98100 98101 99100 Average on all threeAverage on all three 38%

Indexed against the average of the 4 indexed health insurance brands, so 100 is the category average and a brand is read against the rivals it actually competes with.Indexed against the average of every indexed brand in the whole index — 1,605 brands across 61 categories — so 100 is the average brand anywhere here and a number reads the same on every board. 4 health insurance brands, measured across 60 AI answers in the latest weekly run.

Driver by driver

Where the category actually separates. A wide spread means assistants describe these brands very differently on that driver; a narrow one means it is table stakes.

Affinity

9-point spread
Vitality107
Aviva98

The widest field of the three: this is where the category separates.

Attraction

8-point spread
Vitality106
Aviva98

Real separation, but not the category’s defining contest.

Attachment

3-point spread
AXA102
Aviva99

Tightly bunched: assistants describe every brand here in much the same terms, so it is the price of entry rather than an edge.

Where each brand stands

Each brand's three indices, summed up in a line: which drivers it is ahead on, which it is behind on, and the one to build next. A brand that is noticed but not returned to has a different problem from one that is relied on but not exciting.

Vitality: Attraction 106, Affinity 107, Attachment 99
Credible, not first choice
Affinity (identity, values, legitimacy) is its strongest driver.
Vitality
Build next: attraction
Bupa: Attraction 99, Affinity 98, Attachment 100
Average on all three
Close to average on every driver.
Bupa · AXA · Aviva
Build next: attraction
Vitality: Attraction 109, Affinity 110, Attachment 100
Credible, not first choice
Affinity (identity, values, legitimacy) is its strongest driver.
Vitality
Build next: attraction
Bupa: Attraction 102, Affinity 101, Attachment 102
Average on all three
Close to average on every driver.
Bupa · AXA · Aviva
Build next: attraction

What assistants actually talk about

The sixteen dimensions underneath the drivers, scored 0–10 on how the answers describe each brand. Spread is the distance between the strongest and weakest brand: the widest are where a brand can still separate itself, the narrowest are the price of entry.

Where brands separate

DimensionDriverCategory avgStrongestSpread
Boldness & Creativity Attraction 6.5 Vitality 8.0 2.0
Lifestyle Fit & Identity Affinity 6.5 Vitality 8.0 2.0
Heritage & Authority Attraction 8.2 Bupa 8.7 1.7
Innovation & Technology Attraction 7.3 Vitality 8.0 1.0
Differentiation vs Sameness Attraction 7.3 Vitality 8.0 1.0

Where everyone reads alike

DimensionDriverCategory avgStrongestSpread
Reliability & Consistency Affinity 8.0 Bupa 8.0 0.0
Range & Availability Attachment 8.0 Bupa 8.0 0.0
Customer Service & Support Attachment 7.0 Bupa 7.0 0.0
Trust & Credibility Affinity 8.0 Bupa 8.0 0.0
Sustainability & Ethics Affinity 7.0 Bupa 7.0 0.0

Method & limitations

Every week, each category runs a fixed set of unbranded consumer prompts against ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. A separate model reads the answers and scores every brand named in them across 16 perception dimensions, 0–10. Those dimensions are grouped into the three Drivers of Desire from the Havas Science of Desire framework, and each brand's driver score is indexed against the average brand in its own category — 100 is the category average, 115 is fifteen per cent above it. The Vs all categories switch re-indexes the same scores against the average of every indexed brand across every category, so boards can be read against each other; the ranking inside a category is the same either way. Each category's own average, indexed against the whole index, is its place in the category table. The summary beside each brand describes where it stands on the three drivers against whichever benchmark is showing: above 104 counts as ahead, below 96 as behind.

This measures how AI assistants describe brands in their answers. It is not a survey of people, and it is not an endorsement: the scores are a reading of machine-generated text at the time of the run, and relationships between drivers and how often a brand is named are correlational. A brand needs at least six scored dimensions in a run to be indexed, and a category needs at least four such brands to get a board. See the full methodology.