Zupo vs Omniscient Digital, measured

Broadcastwell ran this measurement and sells AI search visibility services, which makes us a competitor of both firms named here. We are not in the comparison. Counted across every answer the gap is about four to one. Counted only across the answers where the question named no agency, it is 15 to zero. Those two numbers describe the same two firms, and only one of them is worth acting on.

answers named Omniscient Digital when the question named nobody

answers named Zupo when the question named nobody

citations to zupo.co all the same

of 223 cited domains appeared exactly once

The name-free comparison

Between 22:30 on 26 July and 01:15 on 27 July 2026 we put ten buyer questions about AI search visibility agencies to Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, five times over. Forty answers per run, 200 in total. Six of the ten questions named no agency, which leaves 120 answers where the engine had to pick a name unprompted.

Data table: Agency, 120 name-free answers, All 200 answers, Domain citations
Agency	120 name-free answers	All 200 answers	Domain citations
Omniscient Digital	15	49	41
Zupo	0	13	19

Read the first column, not the second. The second column is the one a roundup would print and it is inflated for both firms by questions that handed the engine a name.

Why the seeded number misleads

Four of the ten questions carried an agency name inside the question. An answer to a question of that shape will almost always contain the name it was given, whether or not the engine would have chosen it. Eighty of the 200 answers came from those four questions.

Every one of Zupo's 13 mentions arrived that way. Omniscient Digital kept 15 of its 49. That is the difference between a firm the engines reach for and a firm they repeat back when you say its name first.

What the citations show

The 200 answers returned 663 citations across 223 domains, and 129 of those domains were cited exactly once. beomniscient.com was opened 41 times and zupo.co 19. Both sites are being read by the engines. Only one of the two firms is being named when nothing in the question points at it.

That distinction is the practical one for a buyer. Being used as a source and being put on a shortlist are different events, and only the second one produces a conversation.

Both firms against the field

Data table: Agency, All 200, 120 name-free, Domain citations
Agency	All 200	120 name-free	Domain citations
Omniscient Digital	49	15	41
Hamster Garage	19	3	39
Minuttia	15	1	24
Rampiq	14	0	25
Zupo	13	0	19

Publisher disclosure: Broadcastwell provides AI search visibility services. The dated research table is separate from current commercial claims and client evidence.

Method and limits

What we ran. Ten buyer questions, four engines, five runs, 200 answers, 26 to 27 July 2026, one run per prompt. Measured under method v1.0. Current engagements run under method v1.1, described on the methodology page. Question sets were regenerated for each run rather than held constant, so run-to-run movement is question variation rather than engine instability.

What we counted. An answer counts once for an agency it names, regardless of position or sentiment. Citations are every URL the engine returned, opened and resolved to a domain.

What this does not prove. Nothing here measures either firm's work, their results, or their pricing. It measures how often four AI engines named them in one category over two days. Being invisible to an engine is not the same as being bad at the job.

Who wrote it. Broadcastwell sells AI search visibility services and competes with both firms on this page. The measurement is ours, the method is published, and we are not a candidate in it.

Broadcastwell ran this measurement and was named in 0 of the 200 answers. It is not ranked here.

Related research source: The 2026 State of GEO, Volume I. Published open access under CC BY 4.0. Not peer reviewed. This disclosure applies to that source dataset; the agency measurement on this page is described separately above.

Questions

Do AI engines name Zupo or Omniscient Digital more often?

Omniscient Digital, and the size of the gap depends on the question. Across all 200 answers it was named 49 times against Zupo's 13, roughly four to one. On the 120 answers whose question named no agency at all, Omniscient Digital was named 15 times and Zupo was named zero times.

Why is the name-free split the number that matters?

Because 80 of the 200 answers came from questions that already named an agency, in the shape of alternatives-to and one-versus-another. An answer to a question like that repeats the name it was handed, so counting it measures the prompt rather than the engine's own choice.

Zupo is cited 19 times. Is that not visibility?

It is a different kind of visibility. zupo.co was opened 19 times as a source across the run and Zupo was named in none of the answers where the engine chose freely. Supplying the material for an answer and being recommended in it are separate outcomes.

Is Broadcastwell one of the options here?

No. Broadcastwell publishes this page and provides AI search visibility services. The dated research findings are presented separately from current commercial claims and client evidence.

Start with a measured baseline

See which buyer questions leave you out, the sources visible in those answers, and the three changes worth testing first. The Category Audit covers ten questions; the Diagnostic extends to 35 questions and 525 scheduled observed answers, adaptive runs extra. AI answers vary, so repeated observations and disagreements are reported.

Start with the $490 Category Audit

Results appear in your account; a sign-in link arrives by email. Credits in full against the Diagnostic within 30 days.

Get the Diagnostic, $990

Results appear in your account; a sign-in link arrives by email. Credits in full against the program.

Every figure comes from the published method, v1.1.

Create a free account

Free 10-question check (one engine)