According to an AI visibility index (AIVx) by digital marketing, PR and answer engine optimization (AEO) agency Avenue Z, the brands ahead in AI search use category-specific authority strategies that match the citation patterns and regulatory environment of each segment. Those segments include multivitamins, greens and gut supplements, hydration supplements, protein and performance, and GLP-1 and peptides.
“The most striking through-line in this research is how specific a category strategy has to be,” said Tina Fleming, vice president of AI strategy at Avenue Z. “The mix of institutional, editorial, review and retail sources that matters in multivitamins looks nothing like what moves the needle in protein or hydration. If your AI search strategy isn’t built at the category level, you’re leaving visibility wins on the table.”
As brands compete for influence in AI search, Avenue Z’s AIVx reports provide a category-by-category benchmark that shows not just who is winning visibility, but which citation sources are shaping authority and where there is room to gain ground. Each report includes strategic takeaways, an AI visibility leaderboard and ranking and a breakdown of how editorial media, owned content and technical optimization contribute to AI citations in the categories. The goal is to suggest what next steps are.
Category leaders
Across the five reports, AI systems do not treat all cited sources, or all categories, the same. Institutional domains, review platforms, editorial outlets, manufacturer content and user-generated content carry different weights by segment.
For health and wellness brands, generic AEO, PR and content plan will underperform against an AI Visibility strategy that has authority strategies calibrated to each category’s citation mix and regulatory context.
“The difference suggests that AI’s source mix changes with the type of claim it needs to support,” said Whitney Hart, CSO and Director of the AI Lab at Avenue Z. “In a highly regulated category, visibility depends more heavily on sources that can support information about safety, eligibility, approval, coverage and access. That does not mean institutional sources automatically outrank everything else in every answer. It means the citation pattern points to a higher burden of proof when the subject involves medical treatment, regulated access or safety.”
For brands in these categories, authority cannot be reduced to brand awareness or a high volume of mentions, she said. The information must appear in sources that AI can use to establish whether a provider or product is credible, legitimate and appropriate to discuss.
The following dietary supplement brands ranked highly in their respective categories, according to the reports.
Multivitamins
In multivitamins, Nature Made leads. The top six brands - Nature Made, Thorne, Ritual, Pure Encapsulations, Garden of Life and FEEL - hold a combined 68% of AI share of voice, with Nature Made and Thorne together accounting for 43%. In this segment, institutional domains are the dominant citation source, at 52%, far ahead of trade publications (6%), editorial media (5%) and a wide range of other sites.
Greens and gut supplements
AG1 leads the greens and gut supplements category, where the top three brands - AG1, Amazing Grass and Bloom - account for 66% of AI share of voice. Citation influence is more evenly distributed here: institutional domains, editorial media, competitor content and trade publications all play meaningful roles among a broad set of sources.
Hydration supplements
Liquid I.V. leads hydration supplements. Across the category, the leading brands - Liquid I.V., LMNT, DripDrop, Ultima Replenisher and Pedialyte - collectively control 74% of AI share of voice. Institutional domains, editorial media and trade publications exert more influence on AI citations in hydration than user-generated content, retailer pages and review platforms, despite the volume of content in those channels.
Protein and performance
Optimum Nutrition leads the protein and performance category, but concentration is lower than in other segments. The top three brands - Optimum Nutrition, Transparent Labs and Dymatize - together account for 43% of AI share of voice. The report shows a long tail of brands gaining ground, with Isopure, Levels and NOW Sports all posting strong year-over-year ranking gains. Institutional domains represent 40% of cited sources in this category, and review platforms and reference media are more influential here than in other segments.
Protein and performance category has more room for challengers than the more concentrated categories, Hart said. In the category, review platforms and reference media play a meaningful role alongside editorial and trade sources. The combination points to an opportunity for challengers to build visibility through the reviews, comparisons and reference sources AI already draws on for Protein and performance questions. They are not limited to competing for institutional authority with the category leaders. The data does not establish one cause for each brand’s rise, but it suggests that, in a less concentrated category, trusted third-party coverage and clear, accessible brand information can create more paths into the set of brands AI considers.
GLP-1 and peptides: A different authority landscape
Beyond the supplement categories, Avenue Z also examined AI visibility across GLP-1 and peptide-related healthcare providers. Teladoc led this segment, followed by Ro, Hims, Hers, WeightWatchers Clinic and PlushCare. Institutional domains accounted for 67% of citations, compared with 40% in protein and performance, highlighting a different source landscape for AI-generated answers involving medical treatment, safety and access, according to Hart.
What’s next?
Brands need to start by prioritizing their audiences and the key topics, Hart explained. Those priorities should shape a prompt strategy that maps the questions audiences ask across the decision journey. From there, brands can analyze the sources AI cites for those prompts and build an authority plan that connects PR and editorial coverage with owned content, social and user-generated content, retail content, and technical optimization. They also need to track visibility over time because these signals are not static, she said.
“The biggest mistake is assuming that the same source mix works everywhere,” Hart added. “A brand may see results from reviews and reference media in protein and performance, then carry that playbook into GLP-1 without building the institutional and healthcare authority needed for questions about safety, eligibility, approval, coverage and access.”
Other common mistakes are treating trade, editorial, institutional and review sources as interchangeable and focusing on content volume instead of source fit. A category-specific strategy is more useful than a universal one because the reports show that the path to visibility changes from one segment to the next, she noted.
“AEO should be treated as an ongoing communications strategy, not a technical add-on,” Hart said. “It should begin with the audiences and topics a brand needs to own, then translate those priorities into a prompt strategy that maps the questions people ask across the decision journey.”
From there, brands can identify the types of sources AI cites for those prompts and build a category-specific authority plan connecting key messaging, PR and editorial coverage, owned content, social and user-generated content, and technical optimization.
The right mix will not look the same in every category: institutional authority may matter most in one, while editorial, trade, review or reference sources play a larger role in another.
“Brands should track visibility in non-branded prompts over time, the source mix supporting their appearances, changes in brand concentration, and where competitors or inaccurate descriptions are filling the gap,” Hart said. “That makes AEO an ongoing process of monitoring, learning and adjusting communications, rather than a one-time technical checklist.”
