How AI Search Is Recommending Final Expense Insurance: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

AARP Life Insurance from New York Life retained the category lead in September 2026 at 27.7% valid recommendation coverage, ahead of Ethos (27.0%) and Colonial Penn (26.5%). Measured against the July baseline, six of the nine tracked brands recorded significant declines in valid recommendation coverage: AARP Life Insurance from New York Life, Aflac, Choice Mutual, Colonial Penn, Ethos, and Globe Life. No brand recorded a significant baseline-to-current increase. The valid recommendation shortlist share narrowed sharply, falling from 62.9% of qualified observations in July to 46.3% in September.

Within that broader baseline-to-current pattern, most of the individual-month movement occurred earlier in the series rather than in September itself. Comparing August to September specifically, only two brands moved by more than the category's typical range: Choice Mutual, whose valid recommendation coverage fell 3.7 points to 0.7%, and Gerber Life, which reversed its prior decline with a 6.3-point recovery to 25.5% coverage. Movement for the other seven brands between August and September fell within normal variation.

Gerber Life's recovery also closed the distance between itself and the category's top three brands. Its gap with Colonial Penn narrowed from 8.7 points in July to 1.0 point in September, narrowing in every month of the series. Its gap with Ethos narrowed from 8.4 points to 1.5 points, and its gap with AARP Life Insurance from New York Life narrowed from 8.4 points to 2.2 points over the same window. AARP Life Insurance from New York Life has held the category lead across all three tracked months, but its own coverage has declined for two consecutive months, from 34.9% in July to 29.4% in August to 27.7% in September.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (667 unique questions in July, 675 in August, 688 in September) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in July and August, and 799 did in September; 495 were relevant and 305 were irrelevant in July, while 568 were relevant and 232 were irrelevant in August, and 569 were relevant and 230 were irrelevant in September. The public metrics use the 415 qualified observations in July, 452 in August, and 423 in September that survive 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.

The public metrics that follow are calculated against the qualified benchmark observations shown above, not against the full 800-prompt collection.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

In August, the qualified observation count rose to 452, the peak of the three-month series, before settling back to 423 in September. The recommendation-shaped answer share has declined every month, from 48.4% in July to 47.3% in August to 39.7% in September, and the valid recommendation shortlist share followed a similar path, falling from 62.9% to 54.4% to 46.3%. The pool of usable recommendation opportunities has narrowed steadily even as the number of relevant prompts has grown, a pattern that raises the competitive stakes of each qualifying recommendation.

AI Recommendation Trend

The Top Tier Has Compressed Into a Tight Cluster

In July, AARP Life Insurance from New York Life (34.9%), Colonial Penn (35.2%), and Ethos (34.9%) each led the category by more than 8 points over the next-closest brand. By September, the top four brands — AARP Life Insurance from New York Life (27.7%), Ethos (27.0%), Colonial Penn (26.5%), and Gerber Life (25.5%) — sit within a 2.2 point band. The category is no longer defined by a small group of dominant leaders but by a crowded upper cluster where small movements can reorder rankings.

No brand exceeded normal month-to-month variation on the upside from baseline, but six exceeded it on the downside. The category-level pattern reflects a broad redistribution: significant baseline-to-current declines at six brands combined with Gerber Life's significant single-month recovery have compressed the field.

What Changed This Month

Gerber Life: Significant Single-Month Recovery

Gerber Life was the only brand to register a significant upward movement between August and September, climbing 6.3 points to 25.5% valid recommendation coverage from 19.2% in August. This recovery largely restores the brand to its July position of 26.5%, with the baseline-to-current change of 1.0 point falling within the category's typical range.

Gerber Life's raw mention presence rose to 37.1% in September from 34.5% in July, and its valid recommendation count moved from 110 in July to 108 in September after dipping through August. Its rank-one rate recovered to 1.9% (8 rank-one recommendations), up from 1.6% in August but still below the 3.9% recorded in July.

The distinction that matters here is that Gerber Life's recovery was driven by recommendation breadth rather than top placement. The brand returned to roughly July's coverage level by appearing in more recommendation shortlists, but its rank-one rate remains roughly half of what it was in July. What had looked like a sustained decline in August now appears to have been a single-month contraction.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types or surfaces returned Gerber Life to recommendation shortlists, and why did its rank-one position not recover to July levels?

AARP Life Insurance from New York Life: Leader Erodes for a Second Month

AARP Life Insurance from New York Life retained the category lead but declined for the second consecutive month, falling 7.2 points from 34.9% in July to 27.7% in September. The prior-month decline of 1.7 points fell within the category's typical range, but the cumulative two-month erosion is significant.

The leader's recommendation quality weakened alongside its coverage. Its top-three rate fell 9.5 points to 17.7% from July, and its rank-one rate dropped 4.9 points to 4.5%. Rank-one recommendations fell from 39 in July to 19 in September. Raw mention presence also declined 5.9 points to 32.9%.

AARP Life Insurance from New York Life retains the strongest net sentiment score in the category at 0.9, unchanged since July. The brand is still viewed positively when mentioned, but it is being mentioned and recommended less often, and the decline is visible both in overall presence and in the quality of its recommendation positions.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which high-intent prompts is the leader losing, and which brand in the tightened top cluster is capturing those recommendation slots?

Colonial Penn: From Co-Leader to Significant Decliner

Colonial Penn's valid recommendation coverage fell 8.7 points from 35.2% in July to 26.5% in September, a significant decline. The brand's steepest drop came in August, down 8.9 points, and September was essentially flat with a 0.2 point gain.

Colonial Penn's raw mention presence declined 8.9 points to 40.0%, and its top-three rate fell 7.0 points to 11.1%. Its rank-one rate declined 1.1 points to 2.8%, with rank-one recommendations falling from 16 in July to 12 in September. Net sentiment held steady at 0.7.

The gap between Colonial Penn and Gerber Life narrowed dramatically, from 8.7 points in July to 1.0 point in September, driven entirely by Gerber Life's recovery. Colonial Penn's visible presence still exceeds its recommendation result, meaning the brand is named in AI answers more often than it is placed into recommendation shortlists.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces account for the sustained presence decline, and which competitor is taking Colonial Penn's former recommendation positions?

Choice Mutual: Presence Without Recommendation

Choice Mutual's valid recommendation coverage fell 2.7 points to 0.7% in September, a significant decline from its 3.4% July baseline. The prior-month drop of 3.7 points was also significant, making this the sharpest single-month deterioration in the category this month.

Choice Mutual's raw mention presence actually rose 2.0 points to 22.0% from 20.0% in July, even as its valid recommendation count fell to 3 in September from 20 in August. The brand recorded zero top-three and zero rank-one recommendations in September.

The divergence here is stark: Choice Mutual is present in roughly one in five AI answers, but almost never appears in a recommendation shortlist. The brand maintains visibility without converting it into recommendation credit, and that gap widened sharply in September.

Highest-priority diagnostic: What distinguishes the prompts where Choice Mutual is named from those where it is recommended, and which evidence sources support its mentions but not its recommendations?

Globe Life: Structural Decline in Recommendations

Globe Life's valid recommendation coverage fell 4.9 points from 7.5% in July to 2.6% in September, a significant decline. Raw mention presence declined 1.9 points to 9.2%, a change within the typical range, while valid recommendation count fell from 31 in July to 11 in September.

Globe Life's top-three rate fell 1.7 points to 0.9%, and its rank-one rate held at 0.2% with a single rank-one recommendation. Net sentiment declined from 0.7 in July to 0.3 in September, the largest sentiment change among the tracked brands.

The pattern is one of diminishing recommendation presence without a commensurate disappearance from mention. Globe Life is still named in AI answers roughly as often as before, but it is being placed into recommendation shortlists and top positions far less frequently.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which competitor is capturing the recommendation slots Globe Life has lost, and what changed in the framing of its mentions?

Aflac, Ethos, and Fidelity Life: Significant and Near-Significant Declines

Aflac's coverage fell 6.3 points from 19.3% in July to 13.0% in September, a significant decline occurring alongside an 8.7 point drop in raw mention presence to 37.6%. Its top-three rate fell 4.4 points to 6.2%, and rank-one recommendations fell from 9 to 3. The brand's valid recommendation count dropped from 80 in July to 55 in September.

Ethos declined 7.9 points from 34.9% in July to 27.0% in September while maintaining the highest raw mention presence in the category at 56.0%. Notably, Ethos's rank-one rate rose 0.4 points to 5.0%, meaning it is being named first more often even as its overall recommendation coverage shrinks. The brand's valid recommendation count fell from 145 in July to 114 in September.

Fidelity Life declined 5.5 points to 23.2% over the same period, a change that fell just within the category's typical range. Its raw mention presence held essentially flat at 42.5%, but its top-three rate fell 4.3 points to 9.9%, meaning the brand's decline was concentrated in recommendation quality rather than visibility.

Highest-priority diagnostic: For each brand, which specific prompts and surfaces account for the divergence between a stable presence and falling recommendation rates?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 423 qualified observations fell into the brand recommendation cluster. No qualified observations were classified into pricing and value or multi-brand comparison. The public benchmark captures which brand the AI recommends above others, but it cannot yet answer commercial questions about price positioning, value perception, or how brands are compared against each other in the same answer. Those questions require a company-level analysis that goes beyond the aggregate recommendation signal.

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

• Qualified observation counts are small for some brands (e.g., Choice Mutual at 3 valid recommendations, Globe Life at 11). Single-digit changes in counts can produce double-digit percentage movements. Treat small-count movements as directional signals, not definitive shifts.
• The qualified denominator (423 in September) differs from the raw collection (800 prompts). Brand-level percentages are calculated within the qualified set, so they reflect the recommendation signal, not the full prompt collection.
• Directional analysis identifies where movement occurred and whether it exceeded the category's typical month-to-month range. The benchmark does not establish the cause of those movements; the cause requires a company-level audit of prompts, surfaces, and evidence sources.
• The recommendation-shaped answer share and valid recommendation shortlist share both declined across the three-month series, meaning the diminishing pool of qualifying observations raises the stakes of each individual recommendation.

Next Step

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

Beneath these aggregate percentages lie the specific questions that determine commercial outcomes: which high-intent prompts a brand is winning or losing, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. The public benchmark shows the scoreboard; it does not reveal the plays that produced it. In a period where six brands declined significantly against baseline and the top of the field narrowed to 2.2 points, understanding which prompts and surfaces drove those shifts is the difference between reacting to movement and acting on its cause.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It answers the diagnostic questions raised in this report: which prompts to defend, which surfaces to strengthen, and which evidence sources to build.

Request an AI visibility audit