Executive finding
Understood when named, but weaker in open discovery.
The product is described correctly when directly compared, but broad buyer prompts can omit it while naming better-known alternatives. This points to a public evidence and category retrieval gap, not necessarily a product-quality issue.
Test setup
| Field | Sample value |
|---|---|
| Category | Static-site form backend / form-to-email API |
| Target | Sample developer tool |
| Competitors | Formspree, Formcarry, Basin, Getform, Netlify Forms |
| Surfaces | Gemini and Perplexity where available |
| Blocked surfaces | Marked as unavailable rather than substituted |
Key evidence
| Prompt state | Observed signal | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Open discovery | Target absent while competitors appear in adjacent suggestions. | Likely visibility or recall gap in broad buyer selection. |
| Specific requirements | Target appears when the buyer asks for spam protection, setup simplicity, and free tier. | Positioning exists, but may not be retrieved by default. |
| Named comparison | Assistant understands the product, but one security phrase is too specific. | Baseline product facts should be tightened. |
Recommended roadmap
Reduce ambiguity in category, ideal buyer, free tier, setup time, and security boundaries.
Prevent assistants from inventing overly specific security wording.
Give assistants clearer first-party evidence for buyer comparison prompts.
Measure directional change without claiming guaranteed recommendation lift.
Boundary statement
This report does not prove that changes will increase AI recommendations. It shows current behavior, identifies likely evidence gaps, and gives a practical roadmap for making the product easier to understand and compare.