Which Fertility Clinics Does ChatGPT Recommend?

Quick answer: In the October 2026 benchmark, the fertility clinics AI recommends most are CCRM Fertility (36.6% valid recommendation coverage), RMA Network (32.6%), NYU Langone Fertility (23.7%) and Shady Grove Fertility (22.6%). The data comes from CiteWorks Studio's LLM Authority Index — a public, monthly benchmark measuring how often AI platforms recommend tracked fertility brands. It is not our measurement, and it is not a quality ranking. It is a visibility report: who AI names, at a point in time, on six AI platforms.

• CCRM Fertility leads at 36.6%, up 2.7 points from July's 33.9% — but its raw mention presence fell 13.6 points (67.4% → 53.8%), and its rank-one rate dropped from 19.0% to 10.8%. The leader holds the top while the gap behind it narrows
• RMA Network is the strongest riser: 14.1% in July → 32.6% in October, up 18.5 points. Its top-three rate went from 5.4% to 17.9%, rank-one from 0.4% to 5.0%
• Kindbody is the only significant decliner: 14.5% → 5.0% across the series, down three straight months
• The gap between first and second place narrowed from 19.8 points (July) to 4.0 points (October)
• The benchmark measures brand-recommendation prompts only — it does not capture pricing or direct clinic-comparison questions
• Coverage is not quality. These are AI outputs at a point in time, not endorsements

The October 2026 table

Valid recommendation coverage — the share of qualified prompts where a clinic appeared as a recommendation. Source: CiteWorks Studio, LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery, October 2026 run.

What moved, and why it matters

Three patterns in this run are worth a clinic's attention.

First, the leader's grip is loosening. CCRM still leads, but its raw mention presence and rank-one rate fell sharply while its coverage held. In plain terms: AI mentions CCRM less often, but when it does, CCRM still wins the recommendation. That's a fragile dominance — a leader whose presence is eroding while the field rises.

Second, the risers are real, not noise. RMA Network gained 18.5 points in four months. NYU Langone gained 10.5. Movement of that size over a single series is the signal AI visibility is a live asset — it changes month to month, in ways clinics can influence but rarely see.

Third, small denominators. The public metrics are built from 279 qualified observations in October out of 625 raw prompt-surface observations. A 0.0% or 0.7% figure is a handful of individual answers, not a durable pattern. Take the bottom of the table as "rarely recommended," not "never."

What the number actually is

The benchmark's core metric is valid recommendation coverage: of the qualified prompts in a month, the share where a tracked clinic was recommended (not merely mentioned). CiteWorks separates raw mentions from valid recommendations — a clinic can be talked about without being recommended, and the recommendation is the number that drives patient choice.

Method, in one paragraph: monthly runs, July–October 2026, across six AI platforms, using brand-recommendation prompts only — questions like "which IVF clinic has the highest success rates near me?" — not pricing or comparison queries. October's run collected 625 prompt-surface observations (479 unique questions); 547 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 476 were relevant; 279 survived qualification and form the public percentages.

Source: CiteWorks Studio, LLM Authority Index — AI Visibility Market Discovery, fertility-clinics report, October 2026 run, retrieved November 4, 2026. This is CiteWorks' published data — a third-party benchmark, republished here with attribution so clinics can audit it. We did not run this corpus.

Why this is a clinic problem, not a curiosity

Every one of these percentages is built from what AI platforms read about these clinics — registries, directories, institutional pages, press, and the clinics' own sites. When a clinic isn't in the answer, it's because the sources AI reads don't agree about it. That is exactly the mechanism we covered in the seven sources AI reads for fertility: you can't write any of those sources, but you can make sure they agree about you.

The benchmark tells you the scoreboard. It does not tell you why. A clinic at 0.7% and a clinic at 36.6% differ in what AI reads about them — and that is fixable, measurable work.

What to do this week

• Find your own row. Run the manual test: ask ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity "which IVF clinic has the best success rates near me?" for your city, and write down who appears. The manual check is here
• Reconcile your site against your registry entry. Pull your CDC ART and SART pages and compare definitions — live birth per transfer vs. per retrieval, age bands. If they disagree, fix the site. When sources conflict, engines omit rather than adjudicate
• Claim every directory profile that exists about you — FertilityIQ, Healthgrades, WebMD, your Google Business Profile. Incomplete entity records are the quietest reason clinics don't get named
• Read the benchmark as a monthly discipline, not a one-time event. RMA's 18.5-point rise happened in four months. Visibility is moving; the audit should be regular, not annual

One honest caveat

This page analyzes a public, third-party benchmark — CiteWorks Studio's LLM Authority Index, October 2026 run — checked against the live source on November 4, 2026. It measures AI recommendation coverage, not clinical quality. Names listed are AI outputs at a point in time, not quality judgments, endorsements, or medical advice. Figures are quoted with attribution and re-expressed in our own analysis; the source report's text, tables and charts are not reproduced wholesale. Benchmark methodology changes; percentages will move next month. Pager Studio is a commercial AEO service; the practices we work with pay for deployments, and we publish this analysis openly so any clinic can audit its own AI presence. ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity and all other product names are trademarks of their respective owners and are used for identification only.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a ranking of the best fertility clinics?

No. It is a visibility benchmark — who AI names when asked for fertility clinic recommendations. AI visibility is not clinical or product quality, and the benchmark itself does not claim it is. A clinic absent from these answers can still be excellent; it is simply not being recommended by AI at this point in time.

Why are the percentages so different from what I see when I ask ChatGPT?

The benchmark uses a strict metric — valid recommendation coverage — built on qualified prompts, not every mention. It also measures across six AI platforms and only brand-recommendation questions. Your single chat session is one observation out of 625; the percentages aggregate 279 of them.

How did RMA Network gain 18.5 points in four months?

The benchmark doesn't say why — it records what AI recommends, not the cause. That's the gap between a visibility report and an audit. What changed in the sources AI reads about RMA — registry alignment, directory records, press, site structure — is exactly what a clinic-level audit maps.

What can a clinic do to appear in these answers?

Align everything AI reads about you: registry data consistent with your site's numbers, complete and accurate directory profiles, and answer-shaped pages that match how patients phrase questions. The AI visibility walkthrough has the step-by-step test, and the seven-source map shows which sources you can't control and which you can.

Doesn't ChatGPT sell ads now? Can't a clinic just buy its way in?

No — ads never run next to personal health conversations, and pure-play healthcare advertisers may be ineligible to advertise at all. Health answers are organic, end to end. The ads-versus-citations breakdown covers why no clinic can buy the position above these results.

Curious where your clinic lands in this benchmark? Claim Free Snapshot — I'll check how AI currently describes your practice and which sources it reads for you, before anyone talks retainers, or see how the audit works first.

The clinics AI recommends are the ones whose sources agree. Make yours agree.