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 October 2026, but the middle tier is reordering beneath it. Valid recommendation coverage for the leader stands at 67.2%, down 3.4 points from September's 70.6%, a pullback within normal month-to-month variation. The gap between Jabra Enhance and the next-ranked brand widened from 25.5 points in September to 34.2 points in October, with Audien Hearing now in second place at 33.0%.

Eargo posted the sharpest decline this month, falling 15.1 points from September's 45.1% to 30.0%, a significant drop and the second consecutive monthly decline. The decline moved Eargo out of second place and into third. Lexie Hearing also declined significantly, down 7.9 points from 24.0% to 16.1%, its third consecutive monthly decline. Audien Hearing and MDHearing recorded pullbacks within normal variation, down 0.9 and 2.8 points respectively; Audien Hearing's smaller pullback was enough to move the brand into second place.

Audicus recorded the only month-over-month gain among the ten tracked brands, up 0.6 points from September's 3.7% to 4.3%, a move within normal variation. Across the full May-to-October series, six of ten tracked brands remain significant cumulative risers. Jabra Enhance is the largest cumulative riser, up 41.0 points from 26.2% to 67.2%, followed by Audien Hearing, up 27.6 points from 5.4% to 33.0%, and Eargo, up 16.5 points from 13.5% to 30.0%.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (550 unique questions in October 2026; 484 unique questions in May 2026). Of those, 792 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in October 2026 versus 800 in May 2026; 772 were relevant and 20 were irrelevant in October 2026, versus 791 relevant and 9 irrelevant in May 2026. The public metrics use the qualified observations that survive both qualification stages: 467 in October 2026 and 684 in May 2026. The intermediate July 2026 run produced 567 qualified observations, August 2026 produced 558, and September 2026 produced 517.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Which hearing aid brands had conflicting information across AI platforms about their business status?
• Where did AI platforms disagree about the FDA regulatory status of OTC hearing aids?
• What pricing conflicts appeared for brands like Jabra Enhance and hear.com?

21 critical and high-severity factual inconsistencies were detected across six AI platforms: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity. The conflicts cluster around two themes: the current business status of Eargo and Lexie Hearing, and conflicting pricing or FDA regulatory classification of several OTC brands.

Lexie Hearing

AI platforms provided conflicting information about whether Lexie Hearing is still in business in six separate instances, all rated critical or high severity.

When asked "What are the best affordable hearing aids for seniors?", ChatGPT stated that "Eargo/Lexie have shut down operations, so I wouldn't buy those models," citing Consumer Reports and SeniorLiving.org, while Google AI Mode stated that "Lexie Hearing (Lexie B2 Plus / Lumen) is available with a price range of approximately $800 to $1,000 per pair," citing Johns Hopkins Medicine and the National Council on Aging.

When asked "What are considered the best over the counter hearing aids?", ChatGPT stated that "Lexie has gone out of business," while Copilot stated that "Lexie B2 Plus is a top OTC hearing aid with current pricing and availability," citing HearingTracker and HearAdvisor. In the same question, Perplexity also stated that "Lexie B2 Plus is a recommended OTC hearing aid," citing the New York Times Wirecutter and Consumer Reports. A flagged source from the Lexie Hearing website contained a notice that "LXE Hearing, Inc. and its four related U.S. companies each entered into a separate assignment for the benefit of creditors under California law and began winding down their U.S. operations."

When asked "Who sells the best over the counter hearing aids?", Copilot stated that "Lexie B2 Plus (Bose) is a current top OTC hearing aid brand," while ChatGPT stated that "Lexie has left the market," citing Consumer Reports and HearAdvisor.

When asked "What are the top rated OTC hearing aids?", ChatGPT stated that "Lexie has gone out of business, so ongoing support is a concern," citing HearingTracker and the National Council on Aging, while Google AI Mode stated that "Lexie Hearing (Powered by Bose) is a top-rated option with strong customer support."

When asked "What are the best rated over the counter hearing aids?", ChatGPT stated that "Lexie's parent company is winding down U.S. operations in 2026, so Lexie B2 Plus should not be bought now unless support/warranty is confirmed," while Perplexity stated that "Lexie B2 Powered by Bose is listed as a current top OTC hearing aid with strong sound quality." A flagged source from Reviewed.com referenced "Lexie B2 Plus" with "Excellent sound quality and features."

Eargo

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Eargo's business status and product availability in five separate instances, all rated critical or high severity.

When asked "What are considered the best over the counter hearing aids?", ChatGPT stated that "Eargo has gone out of business," while Google AI Overviews stated that "Eargo 8 is a top-rated OTC hearing aid available for purchase," citing HearingTracker and the National Council on Aging.

When asked "Who sells the best over the counter hearing aids?", Gemini stated that "Eargo is a top-rated OTC hearing aid brand currently selling models like Eargo 7/8," citing ElderLife Financial and HearingTracker, while ChatGPT stated that "Eargo has left the OTC market."

When asked "What are the top rated OTC hearing aids?", ChatGPT stated that "Eargo has gone out of business, so ongoing support is a concern," while Perplexity stated that "Eargo 8 is frequently recommended as a current top OTC hearing aid option." A flagged source from Reviewed.com referenced "Eargo 7."

When asked "What are considered the best over-the-counter hearing aids?", ChatGPT stated that "LXE Hearing, parent of Eargo and Lexie, exited U.S. OTC operations in 2026," while Google AI Overviews stated that "Eargo 8 is recommended as a current best OTC hearing aid for near-invisibility." A flagged source from The Verge cited a statement that "LXE Hearing, the parent company for Eargo and Lexie Hearing, two major OTC manufacturers in the US, decided to end US operations and exit the OTC hearing aid market."

When asked "What hearing aids are recommended by consumer reports?", ChatGPT stated that "Eargo has exited the OTC market and its previously recommended Eargo 8/SE is no longer available," while Google AI Mode stated that "Eargo is frequently evaluated in CR's testing and is a top-rated OTC brand." A flagged source from Consumer Reports contained the statement "We also rated three over-the-counter brands: Eargo, Jabra Enhance, and MDHearing."

Jabra Enhance

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Jabra Enhance pricing and business status in four separate instances, all rated high severity.

When asked "How much is Jabra a month?", ChatGPT stated "$65/month for the M3," citing the Jabra Enhance product page, while Google AI Overviews stated "$55/month for the M3." A flagged source from the Jabra Enhance product page showed "Enhance Select M3 ... $1,995 or as low as $65/mo per pair ... Enhance Select M2 ... $1,695 or as low as $55/mo per pair."

When asked "Is Jabra a good brand of hearing aid?", Google AI Overviews stated "$1,195" for the Enhance Select 50R, citing the National Council on Aging and HearingTracker, while Copilot stated "$999," citing the National Council on Aging and Wareable. A flagged source from the National Council on Aging stated "Jabra Enhance Select hearing aids cost $1,195 to $1,995 per pair before discounts."

When asked "Is Jabra discontinuing hearing aids?", Perplexity stated that "Jabra ceased new development of consumer hearing aids under the Jabra brand," citing Reddit, HearingTracker, and Digital Trends, while ChatGPT stated that "Jabra is not discontinuing its entire hearing-aid business; the broader Jabra Enhance hearing-aid line remains active." A flagged source from HearingTracker contained the statement that "The Jabra Enhance Plus over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid will be discontinued effective October 1, 2024... Jabra Enhance continues to manufacture and market its popular Jabra Enhance Select OTC hear[ing aids]."

When asked "Which is the best OTC hearing aid?", ChatGPT described the "Jabra Enhance Select 700" as "a premium option around $1,000," while Gemini stated that "Jabra Enhance Select 700 costs approximately $1,995 per pair," citing SeniorLiving.org and HearingTracker.

Audien Hearing

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Audien Hearing's FDA regulatory status and pricing in three separate instances, all rated high severity.

When asked "Is audien hearing legitimate?", Google AI Mode stated that "Audien's devices are registered/cleared by the FDA as Class I or II medical devices," citing the National Council on Aging and SeniorLiving.org, while Perplexity stated that "Audien products are not FDA-approved hearing aids but PSAPs," citing the Better Business Bureau and Trustpilot.

When asked "Which OTC hearing aids are FDA approved?", Google AI Mode stated that "Audien models like the Audien Atom and ION series are FDA registered," citing the FDA and Better Hearing, while Copilot stated that "Audien is often marketed as 'FDA registered' but may only be a personal sound amplifier (PSAP) or Class I device without full OTC clearance, not equivalent to FDA-cleared OTC hearing aids." A flagged source from HearingAidMatch contained the statement that "PSAP-flagged Brands selling Personal Sound Amplifiers marketed as or alongside hearing aids. PSAPs are regulated as consumer audio products, NOT medical devices."

When asked "What is the best and most affordable hearing aid?", ChatGPT stated that "Audien Hearing (Atom Pro 2 / similar models) costs approximately $300," citing Consumer Reports and HearingTracker, while Google AI Mode stated that "Audien Hearing (Models like Atom or ION Pro 2) starts around $98." A flagged source from WRAL contained the statement that "The Audien Hearing Atom for $99 was the most affordable preset hearing aid Consumer Reports evaluated."

hear.com

AI platforms provided conflicting information about hear.com pricing in two separate instances, both rated high severity.

When asked "How much does hear com cost?", Google AI Overviews stated that "Prescription hearing aids typically cost between $1,975 and $6,500 per pair if purchased upfront," citing HearingTracker and The Senior List, while Gemini stated that "Upfront cash prices for their proprietary Horizon line typically fall between $1,599 and $5,150+ per pair," citing The Senior List and the hear.com pricing page.

When asked "What is the price of Horizon ear machine?", Google AI Overviews stated that "Horizon hearing aids range from about $1,599 to $6,500 per pair," while Perplexity stated that "Horizon hearing aids typically cost about $2,975 to $4,900 per pair," citing Forbes Health and Top10.com. A flagged source from the hear.com pricing page showed "Essential Horizon 1IX starting at $34/mo. $1.00 per day $1,599."

MDHearing

AI platforms provided conflicting information about MDHearing's FDA regulatory status in one instance, rated high severity.

When asked "Which OTC hearing aids are FDA approved?", Gemini stated that "MDHearing models such as MDHearing Volt Max, Air, and Neo are listed among FDA-cleared or registered OTC hearing aid brands," citing the FDA and the National Council on Aging, while Copilot stated that "MDHearing is often marketed as 'FDA registered' but may only be a personal sound amplifier (PSAP) or Class I device without full OTC clearance." A flagged source from HearingAidMatch noted "Ambiguous pathway: FDA-registered only Brands marketing 'FDA-registered Class I' products with no specific 510(k) under their name in openFDA. Establishment registration only."

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How did the qualified observation count change from May to October 2026, and what does it mean for brand percentages?
• What is the difference between source prompt-surface observations and qualified benchmark observations?
• How did the recommendation-shaped answer share change across the series?

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 October report month:

The intermediate July 2026 run recorded 567 qualified observations with a recommendation-shaped answer share of 42.2%, August 2026 recorded 558 qualified observations with a share of 38.0%, and September 2026 recorded 517 qualified observations with a share of 42.7%. October's recommendation-shaped answer share of 46.5% is the highest in the series, consistent with the shift toward shortlist-style answers observed since the May baseline.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which hearing aid brands gained the most recommendation coverage from May to October 2026?
• How did the ranking of hearing aid brands reorder from September to October 2026?
• Which brands declined significantly in October and where did they land in the rankings?

Jabra Enhance holds a widening lead as the middle tier reorders

The category-level movement from September to October was not driven by a single brand. Eargo's significant 15.1-point decline and Lexie Hearing's significant 7.9-point decline account for the bulk of the reordering, while Audien Hearing's smaller, non-significant pullback was enough to move the brand past Eargo into second place. Audicus recorded the only month-over-month gain, though its small base of 20 valid recommendations means the percentage move should be read with caution.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Why did Eargo drop to third place in October 2026?
• How did Audien Hearing move ahead of Eargo despite its own pullback?
• What explains Lexie Hearing's third consecutive monthly decline?

Jabra Enhance holds the lead with a modest pullback

Jabra Enhance's valid recommendation coverage reached 67.2% in October 2026, down 3.4 points from September's 70.6%, a pullback within normal month-to-month variation. Across the full May-to-October series, the brand is up 41.0 points from 26.2%.

The brand's rank-one recommendation rate stands at 47.5% in October, up from 41.8% in September, meaning AI systems named Jabra Enhance first in nearly half of all qualified observations. Its top-three rate is 65.1%, and raw mention presence is 91.2%, 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 between Jabra Enhance and the next-ranked brand widened to 34.2 points in October from 25.5 points in September, though the brand occupying second place changed between the two months as Eargo gave ground to Audien Hearing.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the October pullback is concentrated in specific prompt types or surfaces, and whether the rank-one rate increase reflects a shift in how AI systems position the brand relative to competitors.

Audien Hearing moves into second place despite a modest pullback

Audien Hearing's coverage fell to 33.0% in October 2026, down 0.9 points from September's 33.9%, a move within normal month-to-month variation. The brand remains up 27.6 points from May's 5.4%.

The brand's rank-one rate rose from 5.6% to 6.6%, and its top-three rate increased from 20.3% to 25.5%. Raw mention presence held nearly flat at 46.7%. The brand's valid recommendation count stands at 154 out of 467 qualified observations.

Audien Hearing has moved into second place, 3.0 points ahead of Eargo, a reversal from September when Eargo led by 11.2 points. The brand's rank-one rate is the second-highest in the category behind Jabra Enhance.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether Audien Hearing's rank-one rate improvement is concentrated on specific surfaces, and which prompts now place the brand ahead of Eargo.

Eargo drops significantly for the second consecutive month, falling to third place

Eargo's valid recommendation coverage fell to 30.0% in October 2026, down 15.1 points from September's 45.1%, a significant decline and the second consecutive monthly drop. Across the full May-to-October series, the brand remains up 16.5 points from 13.5%.

The brand's top-three rate dropped from 26.5% in September to 21.0% in October, and its rank-one rate rose from 0.8% to 1.5%. Raw mention presence declined from 62.5% to 48.0%. The brand's valid recommendation count fell to 140 out of 467 qualified observations.

Eargo has fallen to third place, trailing Audien Hearing (33.0%) by 3.0 points. The two-month decline has erased the cushion it previously held over the brands behind it.

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

Lexie Hearing declines significantly for the third consecutive month

Lexie Hearing's coverage fell to 16.1% in October 2026, down 7.9 points from September's 24.0%, a significant decline and the third consecutive monthly drop. Across the full May-to-October series, the brand remains up 12.3 points from 3.8%.

The brand's top-three rate dropped from 11.6% in September to 10.1% in October, and its rank-one rate rose from 0.8% to 0.9%. Raw mention presence declined from 34.2% to 29.1%. The brand's valid recommendation count stands at 75 out of 467 qualified observations.

Lexie Hearing now trails MDHearing at 22.3% by 6.2 points, a reversal from September when the two brands were separated by just 1.1 points. The three-month decline has moved the brand from the edge of the top tier back into the middle of the pack.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types and surfaces drove the October decline, and whether the September-to-October drop reflects a durable shift in how AI systems describe the brand.

MDHearing holds fourth place with a modest pullback

MDHearing's coverage fell to 22.3% in October 2026, down 2.8 points from September's 25.1%, a move within normal month-to-month variation. The brand remains up 17.2 points from May's 5.1%.

The brand's top-three rate rose from 13.5% to 15.2%, and its rank-one rate fell from 2.5% to 2.1%. Raw mention presence held nearly flat at 39.4%. The brand's valid recommendation count stands at 104 out of 467 qualified observations.

MDHearing now sits in fourth place, 6.2 points ahead of Lexie Hearing at 16.1%. The brand's top-three rate improvement suggests that while overall coverage declined slightly, AI systems placed the brand in the top three more frequently than in September.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the top-three rate improvement is concentrated on specific surfaces, and which prompts continue to position the brand in the top tier.

Audicus records a modest monthly gain on a small base

Audicus's coverage rose to 4.3% in October 2026, up 0.6 points from September's 3.7%, a move within normal month-to-month variation. Across the full May-to-October series, the brand is a significant riser, up 3.6 points from 0.7%.

The brand's top-three rate rose from 2.1% to 3.2%, and its rank-one rate rose from 0.0% to 0.2%. Raw mention presence increased from 7.9% to 9.4%. The brand's valid recommendation count stands at 20 out of 467 qualified observations.

Audicus remains well below the middle tier, and its percentage movements should be read with caution given the small counts involved. The brand's 20 valid recommendations represent the smallest base among brands with any meaningful coverage.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which specific prompts continue to recommend Audicus, and whether the modest October gain reflects a broadening of those prompt categories.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent cluster captured all qualified observations in October 2026?
• What can the benchmark not answer about pricing and head-to-head comparisons?
• Why did pricing and comparison observations fall to zero?

In October 2026, all 467 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 observations existed in the May baseline but have since fallen to zero, a category-level pattern 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 Visibility Market Discovery research program.

• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market 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, 1, 4, and 5 respectively in October 2026). Their percentage movements should be read with caution.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: percentages are calculated within the 467 qualified observations, not the 800 raw prompts collected.
• 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, remained at zero in the current month; the public benchmark cannot speak to those buyer-intent clusters in October.
• The qualified observation count has declined from 684 in May 2026 to 467 in October 2026, a decline of 217 observations in the public denominator. Brand-level percentages should be interpreted within this narrowing base.

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, that Audien Hearing moved into second place, and that Eargo and Lexie Hearing declined significantly in October, 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