GEO research
How we research a useful GEO competitor
A practical research framework for choosing relevant competitors, separating AI visibility from traffic, and turning cited sources into content priorities.
TL;DR
- Choose competitors that help explain the buyer’s decision, not just brands with high traffic.
- Save the answer and inspect the sources behind it; a cited publisher may not be a commercial rival.
- Turn a checked gap into one page action with evidence and an owner.
A useful GEO competitor is a business whose customers, offer, and discovery channels resemble yours. High traffic alone does not make a website a useful model for your next content decision.
This guide is an English editorial adaptation of Yiwei’s original research on X, with a practical worksheet for planning an engagement. The businesses discussed in that original research are research subjects, not presented here as clients.
Use a source-to-action worksheet
6sense’s 2025 B2B report found averages of 5.1 vendors considered, 3.8 with prior buyer experience and 3.6 on the Day One shortlist. The study covered nearly 4,000 buyers. These averages do not set the number of competitors your team should audit. Check Google’s AI guidance separately for platform rules.
Worked competitor review
In this fictional exercise, a buyer asks who can plan a CRM migration without replacing the sales workflow. The review uses a saved answer, its cited pages, current service scope and an approved technical guide.
| Observed source | What it helps answer | Owned next step |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial rival’s service page | It states supported systems and client responsibilities. | Check our approved scope; add missing facts to the existing service page. |
| Independent technical guide | It explains field-mapping risks. | Link a reliable reference and create our own scoped example if it helps the buyer. |
| Community discussion | Buyers describe uncertainty about who tests the migration. | Validate that question with sales notes; do not treat one comment as market prevalence. |
| Unrelated high-traffic publisher | It defines CRM in broad terms. | No new article: it does not resolve the buying task in this brief. |
The gap is a responsibility gap on the service page. The output is a change brief naming the service lead as fact reviewer and the editor as owner. The work is done when the revised page answers who supplies, tests and approves the work. Do not copy a rival’s claims or treat its citation as proof that its service performs better.
For a service page, use Fit and Responsibility in Sementa’s audit framework to keep the research focused. The original author’s attribution is retained. This worked exercise is an editorial addition, not a client case.
Start with the buying decision
Start with the choice a buyer needs to make. Choose firms with an offer, market and sales model close enough to help explain that choice. High traffic alone does not make a site a useful rival to study.
Our GEO research scope starts from these buyer tasks. Write down why each firm is in the sample. Keep that reason with the questions so the set does not drift during the review.
Look at the sources behind the answer
Ask the agreed question and save the answer, date, platform and links. Open the cited sources to see what they actually say.
A source may be a vendor, a guide, a YouTube video or a Reddit thread. Those play different roles. Check who owns the source and what claim it supports before treating it as evidence.
Turn observations into useful work
Turn a checked gap into one task on the best existing page. Name the source facts and who will review them. Add a new page only when the buyer needs a distinct answer.
For example, if a buyer cannot tell who tests a migration, ask the service team for its real process. Write that answer from approved facts rather than copying the rival’s wording.
Keep SEO and GEO observations separate
Track search traffic and AI answer checks under their own rules. A brand can appear in an answer without gaining a site visit. A source can be useful even if it has little traffic.
Google’s AI search guidance is the platform reference. Our GEO vs SEO guide explains how the work can overlap without mixing the metrics.
Agree on how the research will be reviewed
Keep the raw answers and source notes with the proposed work. Have someone check the key findings before they become briefs. State which facts remain unclear and who can resolve them.
Review the same buyer task after the changes go live. The goal is a useful next decision, not a longer list of rivals. The monthly delivery scope should state how this review will feed the next changes.
Frequently asked questions
Are cited websites always business competitors?
No. A publisher, forum or documentation page may answer the question without selling a competing service. Record commercial rivals and source publishers separately.
How do we avoid copying competitors?
Use the review to name a buyer question, then answer it from your own scope and evidence. A rival’s wording or results are not your evidence.
Should we add every source topic to our content plan?
No. Add work only when it serves a distinct buyer task and the team has the evidence to answer it.
What is the minimum research record?
Keep the question, context, platform, date, answer, source URLs, checked gap and proposed owner. Without the saved observation, later comparisons become guesswork.
Share the buyer decision and competitor set to scope a focused research review.
