How AI Search Is Recommending Identity Theft Protection: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Aura retains the category lead in September 2026 with 81.0% valid recommendation coverage, a 3.0-point gap over LifeLock at 78.0%. This is a modest recovery from August's 80.1% and keeps Aura clearly ahead, though its rank-one rate fell from 68.3% in July to 59.5% in September — a notably sharper move than its coverage change. The commercial structure remains two brands at the top and a compressed middle that is still finding its footing after August's broad declines.

The standout negative movement is Zander Insurance, now classified as a significant decliner. Coverage fell 8.6 points from 12.6% in July to 4.0% in September, and the prior-month drop of 4.0 points from August was also significant. IdentityForce is the other significant decliner, down 12.3 points from 58.5% in July to 46.2% in September.

The month's most constructive recovery came from Identity Guard, which rebounded 5.6 points from August's 39.8% to 45.4% in September, though it remains below its July level. IDShield also improved from 33.4% to 37.8%. No brand posted a significant rise in September, and the category's movement came from the combination of these directional shifts rather than a single event.

Across the full July-to-September series, the leaders have eased from their highs, the mid-tier contracted and partially stabilized, and the significant decliners are the brands that lost the most ground since baseline. With 405 qualified observations in September versus 398 in July, the benchmark captured a slightly larger sample across the six canonical AI surface families.

The July 2026 run began with 800 prompt-surface observations (431 unique questions) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, all 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 800 were relevant and 0 were irrelevant. The public metrics used the 398 observations that survived both qualification stages. The September 2026 run began with 800 prompt-surface observations (484 unique questions); all 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 797 were relevant and 3 were irrelevant. The public metrics used the 405 observations 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.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

These category-wide metrics contextualize the funnel above.

The recommendation-shaped answer share rose sharply from July to September, while the valid recommendation shortlist share eased, reflecting a shift toward more explicitly recommendation-shaped answers within the qualified benchmark set.

AI Recommendation Trend

The Two-Brand Lead Holds While the Middle Tier Stabilizes Below It

Aura and LifeLock remain the commercial leaders, both holding valid recommendation coverage at 78% or higher in September, while every other tracked brand sits at 46% or below. The leaders' coverage eased from July but stayed within normal month-to-month variation, and the significant movement in the category sits with the decliners rather than the leaders.

Two brands exceeded normal month-to-month variation from baseline to September: IdentityForce and Zander Insurance, both declining. The category-level change came from the combination of these declines with smaller stable movements across the remaining eight brands, rather than from a single concentrated event.

What Changed This Month

Aura Holds the Lead With a Steady Month

Aura's valid recommendation coverage moved from 83.7% in July to 81.0% in September, a 2.7-point decline that falls within normal month-to-month variation. The brand's raw mention presence held essentially flat at 98.3% in September versus 98.2% in July, meaning Aura remains visible in nearly every qualified response.

The sharper movement is in placement quality. Aura's rank-one rate fell 8.8 points from 68.3% in July to 59.5% in September, a notably sharper move than its coverage change. The top-three rate eased from 80.4% to 79.0%, within normal variation. The brand still secured the first recommendation in 241 of 405 qualified September observations.

Aura's recommendation coverage is stable, but its grip on the single top slot has loosened meaningfully since July. Other brands are taking the first position more often even as Aura remains the most-recommended name overall.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Identify which prompt and surface combinations moved Aura from rank one to rank two across the series, and which competitor captured those first-place slots.

LifeLock Gains Rank-One Frequency While Coverage Eases

LifeLock's valid recommendation coverage moved from 82.2% in July to 78.0% in September, a 4.2-point decline within normal variation. Raw mention presence eased from 97.2% to 96.0%, keeping the brand present in nearly all qualified responses.

The clearer story is rank-one growth. LifeLock's rank-one rate rose 8.7 points from 8.3% in July to 17.0% in September, with 69 first-place finishes in September versus 33 in July. The brand's top-three rate eased from 78.1% to 75.6%, within normal variation.

LifeLock is consolidating its role as the credible alternative to Aura, converting more of its recommendations into primary placements. The coverage gap between the two leaders widened from 1.5 points in July to 3.0 points in September, even as LifeLock closed some of the rank-one gap with more first-place finishes.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Map the prompts and surfaces where LifeLock displaced Aura as the rank-one recommendation, and identify the evidence sources cited in those responses.

IdentityForce Is the Largest Significant Decliner Since Baseline

IdentityForce's valid recommendation coverage fell 12.3 points from 58.5% in July to 46.2% in September, a significant decline. The prior-month movement was a smaller 1.8-point drop from August's 48.0%, meaning the sharp contraction happened between July and August and has not reversed.

The decline is driven by presence. Raw mention presence fell 10.0 points from 65.1% in July to 55.1% in September, a comparable drop to the coverage change, with valid recommendations falling from 233 in July to 187 in September. Top-three rate held at 30.9% versus 32.2% in July, within normal variation, and IdentityForce recorded no rank-one placements in either month.

IdentityForce is being included in fewer AI-generated consideration sets, and that contraction has not recovered. When the brand is recommended, its placement quality is stable, which points to a visibility problem rather than a preference problem.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Determine which prompt categories now exclude IdentityForce from the shortlist, and which brands are filling those recommendation slots.

Zander Insurance Declines to Single Digits

Zander Insurance's valid recommendation coverage fell 8.6 points from 12.6% in July to 4.0% in September, a significant decline. The prior-month drop of 4.0 points from August's 8.0% was also significant, giving the brand a two-month significant decline streak on a small base.

Valid recommendations fell from 50 in July to 16 in September, with raw presence dropping from 13.6% to 4.9%, a similarly steep decline. The top-three rate slipped from 1.5% to 0.7%, and the rank-one rate moved from 0.5% to 0.0%, meaning no first-place finishes in September after two in July.

The small-count caveat applies directly. Zander Insurance's movements are measured on only 16 valid recommendations, so the 8.6-point decline should be read with the understanding that individual prompt changes can have outsized effects on a brand with this presence level.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Determine whether Zander Insurance's decline is broad-based across prompt types or concentrated in specific surfaces, and which competitor is capturing its former mentions.

Identity Guard and IDShield Recover Partially

Identity Guard's valid recommendation coverage moved from 51.3% in July to 45.4% in September, a 5.9-point decline that is not significant. The prior-month story is more constructive: coverage rose 5.6 points from August's 39.8%, a partial recovery from the sizable 11.5-point July-to-August drop.

Raw mention presence fell 8.5 points from 60.3% in July to 51.8% in September, meaning the brand is still being surfaced less often than at baseline. However, valid recommendations rose to 184 in September from 150 in August, and the top-three rate recovered to 26.7% from 25.2%.

IDShield shows a similar pattern. Coverage fell 5.9 points from 43.7% in July to 37.8% in September, not significant, but rose 4.4 points from August's 33.4%. Raw presence fell 3.8 points from 48.5% to 44.7%, within normal variation, while the top-three rate improved to 9.4% from 8.0%.

Both brands have stabilized after August's sharp drops but remain below their July levels. The recovery is real but partial, and neither brand has regained its baseline presence.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Assess whether the partial recoveries for Identity Guard and IDShield are concentrated in specific prompt types or surfaces, and whether the gains are durable or reflect single-month variation.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 405 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, which captures discovery and consideration intent. The qualified answers were dominated by prompts seeking a recommended provider, consistent with the category's recommendation-shaped answer share of 42.5% and valid recommendation shortlist share of 79.8%.

Because the Pricing & Value and Multi-Brand Comparison clusters recorded no qualified observations in September, the public benchmark cannot yet answer commercial questions about how AI systems frame price, plan value, or head-to-head comparisons. The evidence shows which brands win the direct recommendation, but it does not reveal how brands are positioned when buyers ask about cost or request a structured 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 such as IDX, PrivacyGuard, Allstate Identity Protection, and Zander Insurance are measured on small numbers of valid recommendations. Their percentage movements can appear proportionally large but rest on few observations.
• Qualified denominator: All brand-level percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set of 405 observations in September, not the 800 raw prompt-surface observations.
• Directional analysis: Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating. It does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.

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 determine whether a brand's position is durable: 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? For the significant decliners, the benchmark shows the movement but not the mechanism.

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 signal into a concrete action plan.

Request an AI visibility audit