How AI Search Is Recommending Clean Makeup Brands: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

e.l.f. Cosmetics holds the coverage lead in October 2026 at 56.7% valid recommendation coverage, with Rare Beauty in second place at 51.6%. The category's real story this month is the widening gap between a rising top tier and brands losing placement. e.l.f. Cosmetics and Rare Beauty are the two significant risers this month, both measured against the July 2026 baseline, while ILIA Beauty and Tarte Cosmetics are the two significant decliners.

The largest single riser in October 2026 was e.l.f. Cosmetics, up 11.0 points from 45.7% in July 2026 to 56.7% in October 2026. Its top-three rate climbed 9.8 points over the same window and its rank-one rate rose 10.7 points. Rare Beauty rose 9.1 points from 42.5% in July 2026 to 51.6% in October 2026, with a top-three gain of 9.3 points over the same window.

The sharpest series decline belongs to ILIA Beauty, down 5.6 points from 40.9% in July 2026 to 35.3% in October 2026, a significant drop over the window, with its rank-one rate down 8.0 points. Tarte Cosmetics fell 5.5 points from 16.8% in July 2026 to 11.3% in October 2026, also significant. Both declines reversed partway in October, but the baseline-to-current separation remains notable.

Relative to the immediate prior month, October 2026 coverage rose for all ten tracked brands, with three of those month-over-month gains — e.l.f. Cosmetics, Milk Makeup, and Rare Beauty — large enough to register as significant on their own. Measured against the July 2026 baseline, the benchmark classifies October 2026 as a mixed month with two significant risers, two significant decliners, five stable brands, and one watch item.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (627 unique questions in July 2026, 632 in August 2026, 618 in September 2026, and 623 in October 2026) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in each month; 737 were relevant and 63 were irrelevant in July 2026, 715 were relevant and 85 were irrelevant in August 2026, 699 were relevant and 101 were irrelevant in September 2026, and 684 were relevant and 116 were irrelevant in October 2026. The public metrics use the 626 qualified observations in July 2026, 640 in August 2026, 645 in September 2026, and 626 in October 2026 that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Where did AI platforms contradict each other about rare beauty's availability at Ulta?
• Which brands had conflicting answers about vegan and cruelty-free status?
• What pricing and promotional eligibility conflicts surfaced for Milk Makeup and e.l.f. Cosmetics?

The benchmark detected 8 critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies across 6 AI platforms in October 2026. The conflicts span four tracked companies and cover availability, vegan status, pricing, and promotional eligibility.

Rare Beauty

A critical inconsistency was detected about Rare Beauty's availability at Ulta. When asked "What brands does Ulta not carry?", Copilot stated that Ulta does not carry Rare Beauty, citing Glam, a Sephora-versus-Ulta comparison page, and Beautindependent. ChatGPT stated that Ulta currently has Rare Beauty in its brand directory, citing the Ulta brand directory page. A flagged source on the Copilot side quoted a page stating Rare Beauty is sold only on its own website, Amazon, and Sephora, while a flagged source on the ChatGPT side referenced an Ulta promotion exclusions page listing Rare Beauty. Both responses cannot be true.

A second high-severity inconsistency concerned Rare Beauty's vegan status. When asked "What cosmetic brands are vegan?", ChatGPT stated that Rare Beauty offers many vegan makeup products but is not fully vegan, citing PETA and Cruelty-Free Kitty sources. Google AI Mode stated that Rare Beauty is entirely vegan and cruelty-free. The two answers to the same question describe the brand's overall vegan status differently, which cannot both be accurate.

A third high-severity inconsistency repeated the vegan-status conflict on a different surface. Asked the same question, ChatGPT again stated Rare Beauty offers many vegan products but is not fully vegan, while Google AI Overviews listed Rare Beauty among top-rated completely vegan options, citing Pacifica Beauty, a Reddit vegan thread, and Credo Beauty. A flagged source on the AI Overviews side quoted a page stating all products are vegan and cruelty-free.

A fourth high-severity inconsistency addressed cruelty-free and vegan status. When asked "Which makeup brands are cruelty-free and vegan?", ChatGPT stated Rare Beauty is vegan and cruelty-free, while Perplexity characterized Rare Beauty as cruelty-free with vegan options available. One answer describes the brand as vegan; the other describes only a subset of options as vegan, which cannot both be true about the brand's overall status.

Milk Makeup

A high-severity inconsistency concerned the price of the Milk Makeup Sunshine Skin Tint. When asked "Are there any dupes for Kosas BB Burst?", Google AI Overviews stated the product retails for $42, citing Reddit, Musings of a Muse, and a dermatologist review page. Google AI Mode stated the price is $89.99 or $100, citing YouTube, CoverGirl, and a Google shopping link. The same product cannot simultaneously retail at both price points.

A second high-severity inconsistency concerned Milk Makeup's vegan status. Asked "What cosmetic brands are vegan?", ChatGPT stated Milk Makeup is known for many vegan makeup products but is not fully vegan, citing PETA and Cruelty-Free Kitty. Gemini stated Milk Makeup is 100% vegan and cruelty-free, citing Live Tinted, Kris Carr, and PETA. The two answers describe the brand's overall vegan status differently.

e.l.f. Cosmetics

A high-severity inconsistency concerned the purchase requirement for the e.l.f. birthday gift. When asked "What makeup brands give birthday gifts?", Gemini stated the free birthday gift requires no purchase for the basic rewards tier, citing Birthday Hunter, Hey It's Free, and Ulta's birthday gift page. Google AI Overviews stated the birthday mini set requires any purchase on the e.l.f. website or app, citing Birthday Hunter's brand guide, a Sephora Reddit thread, and Sephora's birthday gift page. A flagged source on the AI Overviews side quoted an Instagram reel stating the gift requires any purchase on the website or app. Only one of the two eligibility claims can be correct.

ILIA Beauty

A high-severity inconsistency concerned ILIA Beauty's vegan status. When asked "Which makeup brands are cruelty-free and vegan?", ChatGPT stated ILIA is cruelty-free and Leaping Bunny certified but not completely vegan, noting that seven products contain beeswax, citing e.l.f., Pacifica Beauty, and Milk Makeup pages. Copilot listed Ilia Beauty among fully vegan brands with clean formulations, citing Amazon and Thrive Causemetics pages. A flagged source on the ChatGPT side quoted ILIA's own support page stating all except seven products are vegan and the only non-vegan ingredient used is beeswax.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How many prompts were collected versus how many qualified for the public benchmark?
• Why did the number of irrelevant prompts more than double between July and October 2026?

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

August 2026 and September 2026 sat between these months with 640 and 645 qualified observations respectively. The relevance count moved from 737 in July 2026 to 715 in August 2026 to 699 in September 2026 to 684 in October 2026, a steady drift toward more prompts being classified irrelevant to the vertical even as the qualified count held steady.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The table below aggregates category-level coverage and shortlist metrics for both months.

The recommendation-shaped answer share fell to 47.5% in August 2026 and 46.0% in September 2026 before rebounding to 67.4% in October 2026. The valid recommendation shortlist share followed the same path, from 78.3% to 74.2% to 69.3% and then to 88.2%. October 2026 reversed the composition trend of the prior two months within the same six qualified AI surface families, so the rebound reflects answer composition rather than a change in surface coverage.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands rose or fell significantly against the July 2026 baseline?
• How has the gap between the top brands and the middle tier changed across the series?

A rising top tier separated from the rest of the category in October 2026

e.l.f. Cosmetics remains the highest-coverage brand at 56.7% in October 2026, with Rare Beauty close behind at 51.6% and both classified as significant risers across the series. The separation between the leading pair and the middle tier widened, and several brands now sit more than 10 points below the leader.

Four brands exceeded normal month-to-month variation on valid recommendation coverage: e.l.f. Cosmetics and Rare Beauty as significant risers, and ILIA Beauty and Tarte Cosmetics as significant decliners. The remaining six brands moved within expected variation. The category-level improvement therefore came from the combination of a leadership pair gaining ground and several smaller positive movements, offset by two concentrated declines.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• How did e.l.f. Cosmetics convert higher presence into top-three and rank-one gains?
• What explains Rare Beauty's high presence but lower rank-one conversion?
• Where did ILIA Beauty and Tarte Cosmetics lose placement and presence?

e.l.f. Cosmetics

e.l.f. Cosmetics widened its lead at the top of the category. Valid recommendation coverage rose from 45.7% in July 2026 to 56.7% in October 2026, an 11.0-point gain that qualifies as a significant rise. Against the immediate prior month, the brand rose 11.1 points from September 2026, the sharpest single-month move in the series.

The gain is visible across every placement signal. The rank-one recommendation rate rose 10.7 points from 10.2% in July 2026 to 20.9% in October 2026, and the top-three rate rose 9.8 points from 24.4% to 34.2%. Raw mention presence rose 5.4 points to 62.9%. In October 2026, the brand recorded 355 valid recommendations, the highest count in the tracked set.

The distinction to notice is the alignment of presence and placement. Unlike a brand gaining coverage through rank shifts alone, e.l.f. Cosmetics increased how often it is mentioned, how often it reaches the top three, and how often it is recommended first. The notable gap between e.l.f. Cosmetics and ILIA Beauty widened by 16.6 points across the series, and the gap to Tarte Cosmetics widened by 16.5 points.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which AI surfaces or prompt types contributed most to the simultaneous rank-one and top-three gains, and whether the September 2026 dip was a temporary interruption or part of a two-step pattern.

Rare Beauty

Rare Beauty posted the second significant rise in the category, gaining 9.1 points from 42.5% in July 2026 to 51.6% in October 2026. Against the immediate prior month, the brand rose 7.9 points from September 2026, also significant. The brand recorded 323 valid recommendations in October 2026.

The brand's rank-one rate rose 2.3 points to 8.9%, while its top-three rate rose 9.3 points from 20.1% to 29.4%. Raw mention presence rose 2.9 points to 63.9%, the highest presence rate among tracked brands.

The distinction to notice is between presence leadership and rank-one conversion. Rare Beauty appears in more AI answers than any other tracked brand, yet converts that presence to first-place placement at less than half the rate of e.l.f. Cosmetics. The notable gap between ILIA Beauty and Rare Beauty widened by 14.7 points across the series, moving from a near tie to a wide separation.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which recommendation contexts place Rare Beauty in the top three but not at the top, and why the rank-one rate did not move significantly despite the top-three gain.

ILIA Beauty

ILIA Beauty recorded a significant decline across the series, falling 5.6 points from 40.9% in July 2026 to 35.3% in October 2026. Against the immediate prior month, the brand rose 2.9 points from September 2026, a reversal that remained within normal variation. In October 2026, the brand recorded 221 valid recommendations.

Every placement signal declined from baseline. The rank-one rate fell 8.0 points from 17.4% in July 2026 to 9.4% in October 2026. The top-three rate fell 6.8 points from 26.8% to 20.0%. Raw mention presence fell 12.4 points from 51.4% in July 2026 to 39.0% in October 2026, the largest presence decline in the tracked set.

The distinction to notice is that net sentiment held at 0.9 across the series while placement deteriorated. AI systems still frame ILIA Beauty positively when they mention it; the loss is in how often it is surfaced and how prominently it is ranked. The brand still ranks fourth by coverage, so the decline narrowed its position rather than removing it from the leading cluster.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which competitor absorbed the rank-one and top-three positions ILIA Beauty previously held, and whether the October recovery reflects a genuine shift or a partial rebound within a wider decline.

Tarte Cosmetics

Tarte Cosmetics recorded the sharpest series decline in relative terms, falling 5.5 points from 16.8% in July 2026 to 11.3% in October 2026, a significant drop. Against the immediate prior month, the brand rose 2.1 points from September 2026, a partial recovery. In October 2026, the brand recorded 71 valid recommendations.

Raw mention presence fell 6.9 points from 24.3% in July 2026 to 17.4% in October 2026. The top-three rate fell 2.3 points to 4.6%, and the rank-one rate fell 0.5 points to 1.4%, both modest movements within normal variation. The notable gap between e.l.f. Cosmetics and Tarte Cosmetics widened by 16.5 points across the series.

The distinction to notice is the small-count context. With 71 valid recommendations, the series movement at this scale should be read as directional rather than a large-sample finding. The gap to the category leader widened every month of the series, and the brand now sits closer to the bottom tier than the middle tier it occupied in July 2026.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types or product categories account for the concentrated presence loss, and which brands are being recommended where Tarte Cosmetics previously appeared.

Tower 28

Tower 28 rose 3.8 points from 37.1% in July 2026 to 40.9% in October 2026, within normal variation. Against the immediate prior month, the brand rose 4.6 points from September 2026. The brand holds third position and recorded 256 valid recommendations in October 2026.

The coverage gain came from ranking rather than presence: the top-three rate rose 4.8 points from 13.4% to 18.2%, while raw mention presence fell 2.4 points to 48.2%. The rank-one rate rose 2.2 points from 2.4% to 4.6%.

The distinction to notice is that Tower 28 was surfaced less often across the series yet converted that presence into higher placement. The brand improved its rank-one and top-three rates even as its presence rate softened. Net sentiment rose from 0.8 to 0.9.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which ranking contexts improved, and whether the top-three gain is concentrated in specific product categories or surfaces.

Milk Makeup

Milk Makeup rose 3.1 points from 25.2% in July 2026 to 28.3% in October 2026, within normal variation. Against the immediate prior month, the brand rose 4.9 points from September 2026, a significant single-month move but not a significant series move. The brand holds sixth position and recorded 177 valid recommendations in October 2026.

Raw mention presence fell 4.0 points to 33.1%, while the rank-one rate rose 0.5 points to 2.4%. The top-three rate held essentially flat at 13.3%, down 0.1 points. The brand has now recorded two consecutive monthly gains.

The distinction to notice is the divergence between presence and coverage. Milk Makeup is being surfaced less often across the series, yet its coverage rose, pointing to a ranking improvement rather than a visibility increase. Net sentiment rose from 0.8 in July 2026 to 0.9 in October 2026.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which ranking contexts drove the two-month gain, and whether the improvement is concentrated in prompt types where presence was already stable.

Thrive Causemetics

Thrive Causemetics rose 1.4 points from 16.8% in July 2026 to 18.2% in October 2026, within normal variation. Against the immediate prior month, the brand rose 3.2 points from September 2026. The brand holds seventh position and recorded 114 valid recommendations in October 2026.

Raw mention presence rose 0.8 points to 20.0%, the top-three rate rose 2.5 points to 9.4%, and the rank-one rate rose 0.8 points to 3.0%. These changes remained within normal month-to-month variation. The brand has recorded two consecutive monthly gains.

The distinction to notice is the parallel with Tarte Cosmetics. Both brands entered the series at 16.8% in July 2026, but they have diverged: Thrive Causemetics held and gained to 18.2%, while Tarte Cosmetics fell to 11.3%. The separation between the two brands widened across the series.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Why Thrive Causemetics held its position while a peer at the same baseline declined, and whether the divergence maps to specific prompt types.

Glossier

Glossier fell 3.4 points from 20.3% in July 2026 to 16.9% in October 2026, within normal variation on coverage. The brand holds eighth position and recorded 106 valid recommendations in October 2026.

The series reversed direction in October: after falling 5.0 points from August 2026 to September 2026, Glossier rose 2.8 points from September 2026 to October 2026. Despite the recovery, raw mention presence fell 8.0 points from 34.0% in July 2026 to 26.0% in October 2026, the second-widest presence loss in the series after ILIA Beauty. The top-three rate fell 1.7 points to 8.5%, and the rank-one rate fell 0.5 points to 1.6%.

The distinction to notice is between the recovered coverage percentage and the underlying presence signal. Glossier regained some coverage in October 2026, but it is being surfaced in a materially smaller share of AI answers than at baseline. Net sentiment held at 0.7, the lowest in the tracked set alongside Tarte Cosmetics.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which AI surfaces or question types stopped returning Glossier across the series, and whether the October coverage recovery came from placement gains on a smaller presence base.

Kosas

Kosas rose 1.8 points from 31.9% in July 2026 to 33.7% in October 2026, within normal variation. Against the immediate prior month, the brand rose 3.2 points from September 2026. The brand holds fifth position and recorded 211 valid recommendations in October 2026.

Raw mention presence fell 5.0 points to 38.8%, while the top-three rate rose 0.6 points to 15.8% and the rank-one rate rose 0.5 points to 2.7%. Net sentiment rose from 0.8 in July 2026 to 0.9 in October 2026.

The distinction to notice is the compression in the middle tier. Kosas, Tower 28, and Milk Makeup all occupy the 28% to 41% band, while the top two brands have separated to above 51%. The middle tier held ground but gained no distance on the leaders.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts account for the presence decline against a stable coverage rate, and whether the middle tier is converging on a narrower placement profile.

Beautycounter

Beautycounter rose 0.9 points from 2.6% in July 2026 to 3.5% in October 2026, its third consecutive monthly gain but still within normal variation. The brand remains at the bottom of the tracked set in tenth position and recorded 22 valid recommendations in October 2026.

Raw mention presence held flat at 4.2%. The top-three rate rose 1.3 points from 0.8% to 2.1%, and the rank-one rate rose 0.5 points from 0.3% to 0.8%. Net sentiment rose from 0.6 in July 2026 to 0.9 in October 2026.

The distinction to notice is the small-count context. With 22 valid recommendations out of 626 qualified observations, movements at this scale should be read as directional rather than a large-sample finding. The three-month upward streak is the longest in the tracked set, but the movement is small in absolute terms.

Highest-priority diagnostic: What common thread explains the limited prompt contexts where Beautycounter appears, and whether the streak reflects a broadening or a stable but narrow footprint.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Why did all qualified observations fall into the Brand Recommendation cluster?
• What does the absence of pricing and multi-brand comparison observations mean for the benchmark's coverage?

All 626 qualified observations in October 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, as in each prior month of the series. The public benchmark cannot yet answer pricing, value, or head-to-head comparison questions because no qualified observations landed in those clusters. Pricing analysis and comparison analysis appeared in the raw response classification, but not at a level that supports a published finding. The strategic implication is that the current benchmark measures which brand gets recommended, not how AI systems frame the trade-offs between brands on price, value, or direct comparison.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands are rising or declining for companies to prioritize?
• What highest-priority diagnostic should each brand investigate?

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 Visibility Market Discovery research program.

• AI Visibility Industry Market
• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• The qualified denominator (626 observations in October 2026) is the public analysis set; the raw collection of 800 prompts is broader and includes prompts that were deemed irrelevant or reserved.
• Small-count brands carry more month-to-month variance: Beautycounter at 22, Tarte Cosmetics at 71, Glossier at 106, and Thrive Causemetics at 114 valid recommendations in October 2026. Their movements should be read as directional within this four-month record rather than as large-sample findings.
• Movement analysis identifies changes worth investigating. A brand gaining or losing coverage is a benchmark finding, not evidence of a specific cause.
• Two brands are classified as significant risers this period (e.l.f. Cosmetics and Rare Beauty) and two as significant decliners (ILIA Beauty and Tarte Cosmetics); the remaining six are classified stable, with Beautycounter noted as a watch item on three consecutive monthly ups.

Next Step

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

Beneath the aggregate coverage percentage sit the questions that matter commercially: which high-intent prompts is the brand winning, which competitor takes the recommendation when the brand loses, what attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources are shaping those answers. The benchmark shows the scoreboard. It does not reveal the play that produced the result.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. That is where the story behind the movement becomes actionable.

Request an AI visibility audit