How AI Search Is Recommending IVF Clinics: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

CCRM Fertility remains the category leader for IVF Clinics recommendations, holding 31.7% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026. That figure is down from 37.5% at the July 2026 baseline, but the benchmark classifies the change as within normal month-to-month variation, and CCRM Fertility has led the category in every month of the series. The brand leads second-place Shady Grove Fertility, at 22.7%, by 9.0 points.

Kindbody is the only brand whose movement across the series exceeds the benchmark's normal variation threshold. Its valid recommendation coverage fell from 14.4% at the July baseline to 7.2% in September, a 7.2-point decline that extends a two-month downward streak.

August to September was otherwise a quiet month for the category: no brand's single-month movement exceeded the normal variation threshold. RMA Network posted the largest single-month numeric change, from 15.6% in August to 21.4% in September, but that shift is classified as stable rather than significant. The remaining seven tracked brands — Shady Grove Fertility, Columbia University Fertility Center, Pacific Fertility Center, Spring Fertility, Boston IVF, Extend Fertility, and US Fertility — are also classified as stable on the primary metric this period.

Each monthly run in September 2026 begins with 558 prompt-surface observations (399 unique questions) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 558 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 481 were relevant and 77 were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 331 qualified observations that survive both qualification stages. Comparable figures for July 2026: 356 prompt-surface observations (299 unique questions), 356 brand mentions, 301 relevant, 55 irrelevant, with 243 qualified observations. For August 2026: 483 prompt-surface observations (391 unique questions), 483 brand mentions, 418 relevant, 65 irrelevant, with 315 qualified observations.

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.

August operated as an intermediate month with 483 collected prompts and 315 qualified observations. The qualified base has grown in each month of the series, from 243 to 315 to 331, while the share of valid recommendation shortlists has moved from 45.3% in July to 40.0% in August to 47.4% in September.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share eased between July and September while the valid recommendation shortlist share rose, a divergence the benchmark cannot attribute to either AI system formatting changes or prompt-set composition without deeper analysis.

AI Recommendation Trend

A Stable Leader Atop a Reshuffled Middle Tier

Across the July-to-September series, CCRM Fertility remains the clear leader despite a net decline in coverage, and Kindbody is the only brand whose baseline-to-current movement exceeds the benchmark's normal variation threshold. RMA Network, Shady Grove Fertility, Columbia University Fertility Center, Pacific Fertility Center, Spring Fertility, Boston IVF, Extend Fertility, and US Fertility are all classified as stable on the primary metric, including RMA Network's single-month rise from 15.6% to 21.4%. The gap between CCRM Fertility and RMA Network narrowed in every month of the series, from 19.4 points at baseline to 10.3 points in September, even though neither brand's individual movement is classified as significant.

What Changed This Month

Kindbody: The Series' Only Significant Movement

Kindbody's valid recommendation coverage fell 7.2 points across the series, from 14.4% in July 2026 to 7.2% in September 2026, a decline that exceeds the benchmark's normal variation threshold and extends a two-month downward streak. The brand's absolute valid recommendation count dropped from 35 in July to 24 in September.

Raw presence also fell, from 24.3% of qualified observations in July to 14.2% in September, a larger movement than the primary coverage metric, though the benchmark does not separately test presence rate for significance. Top-three recommendation rate declined from 8.6% to 3.3%, while rank-one rate eased from 0.8% to 0.3%.

The gap between Kindbody and RMA Network on the coverage metric widened in every month of the series, from 3.7 points at baseline to 14.2 points in September. Kindbody's gap versus Pacific Fertility Center moved similarly, from an 8.6-point lead at baseline to a 1.0-point deficit in September. Both changes are driven primarily by Kindbody's own decline, since neither RMA Network's nor Pacific Fertility Center's movement is classified as significant.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types or AI surfaces reduced their mention of Kindbody across the three-month series, and which competitor appears in the recommendations Kindbody no longer receives?

RMA Network: Largest Single-Month Numeric Change

RMA Network's valid recommendation coverage moved from 15.6% in August 2026 to 21.4% in September 2026, the largest single-month numeric change in the category this period, though the benchmark classifies the movement as within normal variation. Against the July baseline, coverage is up 3.3 points from 18.1%, also within normal variation, with the brand's valid recommendation count rising from 44 in July to 71 in September.

Raw presence climbed from 27.6% of qualified observations in July to 35.1% in September, while the rank-one rate moved from 1.2% to 3.6%. The brand's valid recommendation count of 71 is the second highest in the category after CCRM Fertility's 105.

RMA Network's presence and coverage rose together across the series, a pattern consistent with wider inclusion across answers rather than concentration in fewer placements.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which specific prompts or surfaces produced RMA Network's September rise, and which competitor's lost placements did it absorb?

CCRM Fertility and the Stable Leader Tier

CCRM Fertility's valid recommendation coverage moved from 37.5% in July to 29.2% in August to 31.7% in September. Both the baseline-to-current change (down 5.8 points) and the August-to-September change (up 2.5 points) fall within the range the benchmark classifies as normal variation, and CCRM Fertility remains the category's stable leader throughout the series.

Raw presence fell from 67.9% in July to 55.0% in September, a larger movement than the primary coverage metric showed, though the benchmark does not test presence rate against the same variation threshold. Top-three rate eased from 26.8% to 20.5%, and rank-one rate from 16.9% to 12.4%, with the brand still leading the category on all three measures. Its valid recommendation count of 105 is up from 91 in July.

CCRM Fertility's raw presence declined more than its valid recommendation coverage did, meaning the brand appeared in fewer qualified observations overall while continuing to hold the largest share of valid recommendations in the category.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces reduced CCRM Fertility's overall presence while its recommendation coverage held comparatively steady, and is that pattern concentrated in specific prompt categories?

Stable Mid-Field and Smaller Brands

Shady Grove Fertility and Columbia University Fertility Center both sit close to their July baselines, at 22.7% and 14.2% respectively, and neither's movement is classified as significant. Shady Grove Fertility's raw presence remains high at 44.7%, down from 49.8% in July, while Columbia University Fertility Center continues to hold the highest net sentiment score among tracked brands, at 0.9.

Pacific Fertility Center and Boston IVF both rose modestly and steadily across the series without any single month exceeding normal variation. Pacific Fertility Center's coverage reached 8.2% in September on 27 valid recommendations, up from 5.8% at baseline. Boston IVF's coverage reached 3.6% in September on 12 valid recommendations, continuing a two-month upward streak from 2.5% at baseline and recording its first rank-one recommendation of the series.

Spring Fertility, Extend Fertility, and US Fertility remain the category's smallest brands by valid recommendation coverage. Spring Fertility's coverage recovered to 6.7% in September from 5.1% in August, though it remains below its 8.6% July baseline. Extend Fertility's coverage fell to 0.9% in September on 3 valid recommendations, extending a two-month downward streak despite raw presence rising to 8.2% of qualified observations. US Fertility recorded zero valid recommendations in September despite appearing in 8 qualified observations.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts or surfaces keep the mid-field and smaller brands below the leader tier, and which of them, if any, is positioned to close the gap next?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 331 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, covering all ten tracked companies. The Pricing & Value and Multi-Brand Comparison clusters registered zero observations, meaning the public benchmark for IVF Clinics currently cannot answer questions about price positioning, value assessment, or direct head-to-head clinic comparisons. The evidence shows which clinics AI systems recommend, but not how they fare on cost or comparative grounds.

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 brands (US Fertility at 0.0% coverage with zero valid recommendations, Extend Fertility at 0.9% with 3) carry wider relative uncertainty; their movements should be read as directional, not definitive.
• The qualified denominator (331 observations in September) differs from the raw collection (558 prompts); brand percentages are calculated only within the qualified set.
• 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.

The aggregate percentages tell a brand where it stands but not why it moved. Beneath CCRM Fertility's stable leadership and Kindbody's significant decline are specific questions: which high-intent prompts are won, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each clinic, and which external sources shape those answers.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. The public benchmark frames the opportunity; a company-level analysis explains the mechanics.

Request an AI visibility audit