Which brands do AI assistants recommend when someone asks for automation software? The July 2026 data gives a lopsided answer. Zapier drew 147,255 mentions across AI search surfaces in our measurement window, roughly 28 times more than the next automation platform we tracked (DataForSEO LLM-mentions index, July 2026). The pattern behind the headline number matters more than the number itself: Google's AI experiences generated 95 percent or more of measured citations for every domain we checked, which means AI visibility still rides on organic search authority. This page collects the counts, the splits by surface, and the honest limits of the methodology, so anyone tracking AI-search visibility for a SaaS brand can quote the numbers with the right caveats. If the category itself is new to you, start with what an AI agent platform is.
What do the July 2026 citation counts show?
Four automation platforms, one measurement window, one index. The table shows total mentions across AI search surfaces in July 2026 and how those mentions split between Google AI experiences and ChatGPT (DataForSEO LLM-mentions index, measured by our research pipeline).
| Platform (domain) | Total AI mentions | Via Google AI surfaces | Via ChatGPT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier (zapier.com) | 147,255 | 142,502 | 4,753 |
| Lindy (lindy.ai) | 5,195+ | Predominant share | Not broken out |
| Gumloop (gumloop.com) | 2,535 | 2,524 | 11 |
| n8n (n8n.io) | 2,042 | 1,967 | 75 |
Reading across the rows, the story is consistent. The incumbent dominates in absolute terms, and every platform earns the overwhelming majority of its citations through Google AI surfaces. The one wrinkle sits in the ChatGPT column: n8n collects 75 ChatGPT mentions against Gumloop's 11 despite a smaller total, an early hint that assistant-specific audiences differ. We look at both patterns below, and at what challengers can realistically do about a 28x gap. The short version matches the playbook behind lists like our roundup of Zapier alternatives that use AI: win specific tasks, not the category head term.
Key LLM citation statistics for 2026
Every number below comes from the same July 2026 measurement unless labeled otherwise. Each entry pairs the count with the context needed to quote it accurately.
- zapier.com recorded 147,255 mentions across AI search surfaces in July 2026. That is the largest count we measured for any automation platform, and it dwarfs the rest of the category (DataForSEO LLM-mentions index, July 2026).
- 96.8 percent of Zapier's AI citations came through Google AI surfaces. The split was 142,502 mentions via Google AI experiences against 4,753 via ChatGPT, a ratio of roughly 30 to 1.
- lindy.ai recorded at least 5,195 mentions, the second-highest total measured. Its citations came predominantly through Google AI surfaces; the index reports this total as a floor value rather than an exact figure.
- gumloop.com recorded 2,535 mentions, with 2,524 via Google AI surfaces and 11 via ChatGPT. That works out to 99.6 percent of its AI visibility arriving through Google, the most Google-dependent profile in the dataset.
- n8n.io recorded 2,042 mentions, split 1,967 via Google AI surfaces and 75 via ChatGPT. n8n trails Gumloop on total mentions but earns nearly seven times more ChatGPT citations.
- The category leader was cited roughly 28 times more than the next automation platform measured. Incumbent advantage compounds in AI answers: assistants recommend what the web already links to, ranks, and reviews.
- Zapier out-cited Lindy, Gumloop, and n8n combined by roughly 15 to 1. The three challengers total 9,772 measured mentions against Zapier's 147,255.
- ChatGPT citation counts ran roughly 20x to 500x smaller than Google AI surface counts for the same domains. Gumloop sits at the extreme end, with 2,524 Google-surface mentions against 11 from ChatGPT.
- Analyses published in 2025 suggest roughly 80 percent of LLM citations point to pages outside the top 100 organic results. We treat this industry figure as directional rather than precise, but it matches what we observe: domain authority decides who gets cited, while the specific pages cited are often deep, specific ones that never ranked.
- Published correlation studies repeatedly flag YouTube presence as the signal most strongly correlated with AI citation likelihood. Correlation is not causation, but assistants visibly lean on video-derived content when answering how-to and comparison queries.
Why do Google AI surfaces dominate the counts?
Google's AI experiences sit on top of the same crawl, index, and ranking infrastructure as classic Google search. When an AI answer needs sources about automation software, it reaches for domains that search already trusts, so a brand's decade of accumulated links and rankings converts directly into AI citations. Zapier's 142,502 Google-surface mentions are less a new phenomenon than existing search authority wearing a new interface.
Scale does the rest. Google handles billions of queries a day, and AI answers now attach to a meaningful share of them, so even a modest citation rate per query produces counts no standalone assistant matches yet. In our reading, that carries a blunt implication: for the next few quarters at least, the reliable path to AI visibility is still organic authority, not a separate AI-only channel. Chasing assistant-specific tricks before the search foundation exists gets the order backwards. A separate distinction matters for interpreting these answers at all: whether your buyers are reading generative summaries or delegating to software that acts. We unpack that split in agentic AI vs generative AI.
How does ChatGPT citation volume compare?
ChatGPT's counts look tiny next to Google's, between roughly 20x and 500x smaller per domain, but the comparison needs care. ChatGPT answers many questions without citing anything, its search modes attach fewer links per answer than Google's AI experiences, and its query volume, while large, is still a fraction of Google's. A small measured count does not mean small influence on buyers; it means fewer observable citation events.
The mix is the more interesting signal. n8n's 75 ChatGPT mentions against Gumloop's 11, despite fewer total mentions, suggests ChatGPT's citation behavior tilts toward brands with strong developer communities and documentation footprints rather than pure search authority. We have found that pattern worth watching: if assistant-native audiences keep diverging from search audiences, platforms that treat ChatGPT as its own channel will compound an edge. And if you are still mapping what these assistants are and are not, our comparison of AI agents vs chatbots draws the line.
How we measured these numbers
The counts come from DataForSEO's LLM-mentions index, queried in July 2026 by our research pipeline. A mention is one recorded citation of a domain across AI search surfaces, including Google AI experiences and ChatGPT, aggregated across all locations. Four things to keep in mind before quoting the numbers:
- Point in time. Counts reflect a July 2026 measurement window. AI answer engines re-rank sources continuously, so expect month-to-month movement in both totals and splits.
- Mentions, not traffic. A mention is a recorded citation event, not a click, a visitor, or an endorsement. High counts indicate visibility inside AI answers, nothing more.
- Coverage limits. The index covers Google AI experiences and ChatGPT. Assistants such as Perplexity, Claude, and Copilot are not in these counts, so true AI visibility is understated for every brand here.
- Floor values. Lindy's total is reported as at least 5,195, so we treat it as a minimum. Exact Google-versus-ChatGPT splits were available for the other three domains.
We chose these four domains because buyers comparing automation and AI agent platforms shortlist them together constantly. We publish the numbers as measured, including the ones that cut against a challenger narrative.
How should SaaS teams read these numbers?
Start with the boring conclusion. Since Google AI surfaces drive 95 percent or more of measured citations, organic search authority is still the input that moves AI visibility, and nothing exotic outranks it. Rankings, links, and crawlable content remain the foundation; the AI answer layer inherits them.
The second move follows from the 2025 industry analyses: because most LLM citations appear to point to pages outside the top 100 organic results, deep and specific pages can earn citations even when they never rank. Statistics pages, honest comparisons, and task-level explainers are the formats we see assistants quote. It is why head-to-head pages such as Gravity vs Zapier and task explainers like what an AI agent can actually do exist as standalone URLs rather than paragraphs inside a hub.
Third, for challengers staring at a 28x gap: do not contest the head term. Assistants recommend Zapier for the category question because the web does. The winnable queries are specific: a vertical, a task, a constraint like price. And given the YouTube correlation in published studies, in our experience the fastest-compounding channel outside your own site is video that answers those same specific questions.
Frequently asked questions
What counts as an LLM citation in this data?
A citation here is one recorded mention of a domain across AI search surfaces, including Google AI experiences and ChatGPT, as captured by DataForSEO's LLM-mentions index. It covers brand and link mentions surfaced in AI answers, aggregated across all locations, not clicks and not conversions.
Which automation platform do AI assistants cite most?
Zapier, by a wide margin. We measured 147,255 mentions for zapier.com across AI search surfaces in July 2026, roughly 28 times more than Lindy, the next automation platform in the data, and about 15 times more than Lindy, Gumloop, and n8n combined.
Where do most LLM citations come from right now?
Google AI surfaces. Across the domains we measured, Google AI experiences accounted for roughly 95 percent or more of citations, with 142,502 of Zapier's 147,255 mentions arriving that way. ChatGPT contributed a much smaller share, between roughly 20x and 500x fewer mentions per domain.
Do ChatGPT and Google AI surfaces cite the same brands?
The overall ranking is similar, but the mix shifts. n8n earned 75 ChatGPT citations against Gumloop's 11, despite having fewer total mentions, which suggests developer-oriented brands can punch above their weight inside ChatGPT while lagging on Google surfaces.
How stable are these citation counts over time?
Not very. These are point-in-time counts from a July 2026 measurement, and AI answer engines re-rank sources continuously as models, indexes, and answer formats change. Treat the ratios as the durable finding, not the absolute numbers, and re-measure monthly if you track AI visibility seriously.
Sources
- DataForSEO, LLM-mentions index, dataforseo.com, backs every mention count on this page (Zapier 147,255; Lindy 5,195+; Gumloop 2,535; n8n 2,042, with the Google AI and ChatGPT splits as shown), measured July 2026 by the gravity.fast research pipeline across all locations.
- Domains measured: zapier.com, lindy.ai, gumloop.com, and n8n.io.
- The two industry-context figures (roughly 80 percent of LLM citations pointing outside the top 100 organic results, and YouTube presence as the strongest citation correlate) summarize analyses of LLM citation behavior published in 2025. Methodologies vary across those studies, so we cite them qualitatively rather than attributing a single number to a single paper.