How AI Search Is Recommending Body Care Brands: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

CeraVe remains the category leader in AI-driven body care recommendations, holding 89.9% valid recommendation coverage in August 2026. The gap to the next brand widened slightly as Neutrogena, the second-place brand, saw its coverage ease from 84.6% in July to 81.1% in August, leaving an 8.8-point gap between the top two.

The most notable move this month was a decline. Kiehl's dropped 6.9 points, from 51.7% valid recommendation coverage in July to 44.8% in August. This was the only movement in the category that moved beyond normal month-to-month variation, making Kiehl's the sole significant decliner. The brand also saw raw mention presence fall from 56.7% to 50.3%, a drop of 6.4 points.

No brand posted a significant rise in recommendation coverage this month. The category overall, while adjusting at the margins, saw most brands hold steady or ease slightly. CeraVe's top-three rate rose 8.5 points, from 65.8% to 74.3%, even as its overall coverage eased slightly, indicating the leader is being recommended more prominently within answer lists.

Each monthly benchmark run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations across the defined AI/search surface universe (660 unique questions in July, 700 in August). Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 665 were relevant and 135 were irrelevant in July, versus 690 relevant and 110 irrelevant in August. The public metrics are drawn from the 623 qualified observations in July and 634 qualified observations in August that survived both qualification stages.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

These benchmark-level figures set the context for the brand-level standings that follow.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

AI Recommendation Trend

Leader Retains Its Position While Trailing Coverage Slips

CeraVe holds a stable leadership position. Its valid recommendation coverage eased slightly from 90.8% in July to 89.9% in August, a change within normal variation. The more notable dynamic is that the competitive cluster behind the leader shifted, with second-place Neutrogena and third-place Cetaphil both easing, while Kiehl's fell more sharply.

The category-level change came from a combination of several smaller downward movements plus one significant decline. Only Kiehl's moved beyond normal month-to-month variation; the remaining shifts, while directionally consistent, fell within expected month-to-month variation.

What Changed This Month

Kiehl's

Kiehl's posted the sharpest and only significant decline in the category. Valid recommendation coverage dropped from 51.7% in July to 44.8% in August, a fall of 6.9 points that moved beyond the range of normal month-to-month variation. The brand still holds fourth place, but the gap to the brands above it widened.

Raw mention presence fell in parallel, from 56.7% to 50.3%, a decline of 6.4 points. This suggests the coverage loss was driven at least in part by the brand appearing in fewer AI-generated answers at all, rather than simply being mentioned without a recommendation.

Kiehl's did improve on prominence within the answers where it did appear. Its top-three rate rose from 28.9% to 31.2%, and rank-one appearances moved from 2.2% to 3.3%, though both changes were within normal variation. The brand had 284 valid recommendations in August, down from 322 in July.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts that previously surfaced Kiehl's now omit it, and which competitor is taking its place in those answers?

CeraVe

CeraVe remains the coverage leader, but its story this month is about prominence, not overall reach. Valid recommendation coverage eased from 90.8% in July to 89.9% in August, a 0.9-point dip within normal variation. Raw mention presence also dipped slightly from 97.4% to 97.2%.

Where CeraVe gained was in answer placement. The top-three rate rose from 65.8% to 74.3%, an 8.5-point gain. Rank-one appearances also rose from 44.5% to 49.7%.

This creates a distinction worth noting. CeraVe is being recommended in slightly fewer answers overall, but in the answers where it appears, it is being positioned at the top of the list more often. The brand had 570 valid recommendations in August, down slightly from 566 in July.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which answer surfaces are now placing CeraVe at rank one more consistently, and are those surfaces the highest-intent prompts?

Neutrogena

Neutrogena holds second place but lost ground to the leader. Valid recommendation coverage fell from 84.6% in July to 81.1% in August, a 3.5-point decline within normal variation. Raw mention presence also eased from 91.6% to 90.5%.

The brand's top-three rate improved from 42.4% to 47.6%, a gain of 5.2 points. Rank-one appearances declined from 8.7% to 7.4%. The brand had 514 valid recommendations in August, down from 527 in July.

The directional signals are mixed. Coverage is down, but placement quality is improving. The brand is recommended slightly less often but more prominently when it is surfaced.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Is the decline in coverage concentrated in specific prompt categories or surfaces, and where is Neutrogena losing mentions to other brands?

Stable Mid-Tier

Cetaphil and the remaining brands held largely steady within normal variation. Cetaphil's coverage eased from 73.2% to 71.8%, with raw presence down from 78.8% to 77.3%. Its top-three rate improved from 46.9% to 51.6%, but rank-one appearances slipped from 7.5% to 6.6%. Cetaphil held 455 valid recommendations in August, down from 456 in July.

Origins and Sun Bum both sit in low single digits. Origins fell from 4.2% to 3.0% coverage with 19 valid recommendations in August, down from 26. Sun Bum eased from 4.8% to 4.1% with 26 valid recommendations, down from 30. Kopari Beauty holds minimal presence at 0.2% coverage with just 1 valid recommendation in August. Billie recorded zero presentations and zero qualified recommendations in August, after a single presence mention in July.

Highest-priority diagnostic: For the small-count brands, which specific prompts generate the handful of recommendations they do receive, and why is presence so thin across the broader prompt set?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In August 2026, all 634 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The benchmark surfaced no qualified observations for pricing, value, or head-to-head comparison questions in either month. This means the public benchmark can speak to which brands AI systems recommend for body care purchases, but it cannot yet answer which brand AI positions as the value option, the premium option, or the winner of a direct brand comparison.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery research program.

• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: Brands like Billie, Kopari Beauty, Origins, and Sun Bum have small absolute counts. Their percentage movements should be read with that context; a change of a few points can represent only a handful of answers.
• Qualified denominator: Percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set (634 observations in August), not the raw collection of 800 prompts. This means the public metrics are conservative and exclude prompts that did not meet relevance criteria.
• Directional analysis: Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating, but it does not by itself establish the cause of those changes. A brand appearing more or less often in AI answers can reflect shifts in the underlying evidence sources, model behavior, or prompt mix.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

The aggregate percentages above raise questions that the benchmark alone cannot answer. Which high-intent prompts does a brand win, and which does it lose? When a brand is not recommended first, which competitor takes the top slot? What attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources are shaping those answers?

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. Where the benchmark shows a signal, the audit shows the cause and the path to change.

Request an AI visibility audit