How AI Search Is Recommending Hearing Aids: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Jabra Enhance remains the clear leader in AI search recommendations for Hearing Aids in September 2026, with valid recommendation coverage of 70.6%. That is down 3.1 points from August's 73.7%, a pullback within normal month-to-month variation. The gap to the next brand, Eargo at 45.1%, stands at 25.5 points, wider than the 16.5-point gap recorded in August.

The strongest upward mover this month was MDHearing, which rose 7.7 points from August's 17.4% to 25.1% in September, a significant move that reversed the prior month's decline and lifted the brand into the middle tier. Eargo recorded the sharpest decline, falling 12.1 points from 57.2% to 45.1%, a significant drop that narrowed but did not erase its lead over brands behind it.

Across the full May-to-September series, seven of ten tracked brands recorded meaningful gains. Jabra Enhance is the largest cumulative riser, up 44.4 points from 26.2% to 70.6%, followed by Eargo, up 31.6 points from 13.5% to 45.1%, and Audien Hearing, up 28.5 points from 5.4% to 33.9%. The category remains in a settled tier structure, with Jabra Enhance alone at the top.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (543 unique questions in September 2026; 484 unique questions in May 2026). Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in each month; 786 were relevant and 14 were irrelevant in September 2026, versus 791 relevant and 9 irrelevant in May 2026. The public metrics use the qualified observations that survive both stages: 517 in September 2026 and 684 in May 2026. The intermediate July 2026 run collected 800 prompts and produced 567 qualified observations, and August 2026 produced 558.

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.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The following category-wide metrics show how the recommendation mix moved between the May baseline and the September report month:

The intermediate July 2026 run recorded 567 qualified observations with a recommendation-shaped answer share of 42.2%, and August 2026 recorded 558 qualified observations with a share of 38.0%. September's recommendation-shaped answer share of 42.7% is the highest in the series, indicating the category-wide shift toward shortlist-style answers observed since the May baseline has continued into the current period.

AI Recommendation Trend

Jabra Enhance holds the lead as the middle tier tightens

The category structure shifted modestly this month. MDHearing's significant rise moved it into a near tie with Lexie Hearing for fourth place, with just 1.1 points separating the two brands. The gap between Eargo at 45.1% and Audien Hearing at 33.9% narrowed to 11.2 points, while the gap between the leader and the rest of the field continues to widen. No single brand accounts for the category-level change; it came from the combination of sizable downward movement from Eargo and smaller pullbacks across several other brands.

What Changed This Month

Jabra Enhance holds the lead despite a modest pullback

Jabra Enhance's valid recommendation coverage reached 70.6% in September 2026, down from 73.7% in August 2026, a 3.1-point pullback within normal month-to-month variation. Across the full May-to-September series, the brand is up 44.4 points from 26.2%.

The brand's rank-one recommendation rate stands at 41.8% in September, down slightly from 40.3% in August, meaning AI systems named Jabra Enhance first in more than four of every ten qualified observations in both months. Its top-three rate is 60.7%, and raw mention presence is 91.5%, the highest in the category.

Jabra Enhance appears in nearly every qualified observation and is recommended at a rate that no other tracked brand approaches. The gap to Eargo widened to 25.5 points in September from 16.5 points in August.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the modest September pullback is concentrated in specific prompt types or surfaces, and which competitor is named when Jabra Enhance is not recommended.

MDHearing posts the largest gain and enters the middle tier

MDHearing's valid recommendation coverage rose to 25.1% in September 2026, up 7.7 points from August's 17.4%, a significant move that reverses the prior month's decline. Across the full series, the brand is up 20.0 points from May's 5.1%.

The brand's top-three rate reached 13.5% in September, up from 9.1% in August, and its rank-one rate rose from 0.9% to 2.5%. Raw mention presence rose from 26.9% to 38.1%.

MDHearing now sits in a near tie with Lexie Hearing for fourth place, with 1.1 points separating the two. The brand moved from the middle of the pack to the edge of the top tier on the strength of a single significant monthly gain.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts and surfaces drove the September gain, and whether the improvement reflects a durable change in how AI systems describe the brand.

Eargo drops significantly but holds second place

Eargo's valid recommendation coverage fell to 45.1% in September 2026, down 12.1 points from August's 57.2%, a significant decline. Across the full May-to-September series, the brand remains up 31.6 points from 13.5%.

The brand's top-three rate dropped from 29.9% in August to 26.5% in September, and its rank-one rate fell from 2.0% to 0.8%. Raw mention presence declined from 70.8% to 62.5%.

Eargo remains in second place with an 11.2-point cushion over Audien Hearing at 33.9%. The brand's presence is still strong, but the September decline narrowed the distance between Eargo and the brands behind it.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types and surfaces drove the September decline, and which competitor or competitors picked up the recommendations Eargo lost.

Audien Hearing and Lexie Hearing pull back modestly

Audien Hearing's coverage fell to 33.9% in September 2026, down 4.8 points from August's 38.7%, a move within normal month-to-month variation. The brand remains up 28.5 points from May's 5.4%. Its rank-one rate rose from 3.9% to 5.6% despite the overall coverage decline.

Lexie Hearing's coverage slipped to 24.0% in September, down 0.7 points from August's 24.7%, effectively flat. The brand remains up 20.2 points from May. Both brands show widening gaps to the leaders: Audien Hearing trails Eargo by 11.2 points, and Lexie Hearing now sits behind MDHearing by 1.1 points.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether Audien Hearing's coverage decline is broad-based or concentrated in specific prompt categories, and which surfaces continue to place Lexie Hearing in the top tier.

Audicus and ZipHearing hold small gains on small bases

Audicus recorded 3.7% coverage in September 2026, down 2.4 points from August's 6.1% but up 3.0 points from May's 0.7%. The brand had 19 valid recommendations out of 517 qualified observations.

ZipHearing recorded 1.9% coverage, down 0.2 points from August's 2.1%, with 10 valid recommendations. Both brands remain well below the middle tier, and their percentage movements should be read with caution given the small counts involved.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which specific prompts continue to recommend Audicus and ZipHearing, and whether the recent declines reflect a narrowing of those prompt categories.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 517 qualified observations fell into the brand recommendation cluster. This means the public benchmark can speak directly to which brands AI systems recommend when a buyer asks for a hearing aid suggestion. The benchmark cannot currently answer questions about pricing and value positioning or head-to-head comparison dynamics, because no qualified observations in the current month fell into those clusters. Pricing and comparison coverage existed in the May baseline but has since fallen to zero, a category-level shift worth examining at company level.

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 movements: brands like Yes Hearing, Nano Hearing Aids, hear.com, and ZipHearing have very small valid recommendation counts (0, 0, 2, and 10 respectively in September 2026). Their percentage movements should be read with caution.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: percentages are calculated within the 517 qualified observations, not the 800 raw prompts collected.
• Directional analysis: month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.
• Pricing and comparison observations, present in the May baseline, fell to zero in the current month; the public benchmark cannot speak to those buyer-intent clusters in September.

Next Step

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

Beneath the aggregate percentages sit the questions that matter for strategy: which high-intent prompts does a brand win, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. The benchmark shows that Jabra Enhance leads and that MDHearing gained ground in September, but it does not by itself explain why AI systems form those recommendations.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It converts the benchmark's directional signals into a concrete action plan for closing the gap to the leader or defending a leading position.

Request an AI visibility audit