How AI Search Is Recommending IVF Clinics: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

CCRM Fertility remains the category leader for IVF Clinics recommendations, holding 36.4% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, a 1.1-point move from its 37.5% July baseline that the benchmark classifies as stable within normal variation. The leader's margin over second-place RMA Network is 6.2 points, a gap that has narrowed steadily across the four-month series as RMA Network has climbed.

RMA Network is the series' only significant riser, with valid recommendation coverage up 12.1 points from the July baseline (18.1% to 30.2%) and up 8.8 points from September to October alone. The brand now holds 88 valid recommendations, second only to CCRM Fertility's 106.

Kindbody is the series' significant decliner, with coverage down 8.9 points from the July baseline (14.4% to 5.5%), extending a three-month downward streak. The company's absolute valid recommendation count has fallen from 35 in July to 16 in October.

The gap between Kindbody and RMA Network widened in every month of the series, from 3.7 points at baseline to 24.7 points in October. The remaining eight tracked brands show no significant movement on the primary metric: six — Shady Grove Fertility, Columbia University Fertility Center, Spring Fertility, Extend Fertility, and US Fertility, along with CCRM Fertility itself — are classified as stable, and two, Boston IVF and Pacific Fertility Center, are watch items showing multi-month rising streaks that have not yet reached significant levels.

Each monthly run begins with prompt-surface observations across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. For October 2026, 613 prompts were collected (466 unique questions). Of those, 535 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 458 were relevant and 77 were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 291 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 prompts (391 unique questions), 483 brand mentions, 418 relevant, 65 irrelevant, with 315 qualified observations. For September 2026: 558 prompts (399 unique questions), 558 brand mentions, 481 relevant, 77 irrelevant, with 331 qualified observations.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Where did AI platforms give conflicting IVF success-rate figures for Shady Grove Fertility?
• Which clinics were involved in the factual inconsistencies flagged across AI platforms?

The benchmark detected 6 critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies across 4 AI platforms. These conflicts involve two companies and reflect materially incompatible claims about success rates, legal proceedings, and ownership structure.

Shady Grove Fertility

AI platforms provided conflicting information about IVF success rates at Shady Grove Fertility across four age brackets, all high severity and high confidence. When asked "What is the success rate of IVF at Shady Grove?", ChatGPT and Gemini gave incompatible figures for each age group. The conflict pattern is consistent: ChatGPT reported higher point estimates citing Shady Grove Fertility's own treatment pages, while Gemini reported ranges citing the clinic's annual IVF report, its age-and-pregnancy article, and the SART national registry.

For ages 35–37, ChatGPT stated 45.8% while Gemini stated 35% to 44%, a conflict the benchmark flagged because the ChatGPT figure falls outside Gemini's stated range. ChatGPT cited Shady Grove Fertility's "In Vitro Fertilization" treatment page; Gemini cited the clinic's 24th Annual IVF Program Report, its "Age and Achieving Pregnancy" article, and the SART Clinic Summary Report.

For ages over 42, ChatGPT stated 13.0% while Gemini stated "below 10%." Gemini's response cited a SART registry excerpt showing live birth rates of "57.2% 41.7% 19.5% 16.5% 7.8%" across age brackets, which the benchmark flagged as supporting its lower estimate.

For ages 38–40, ChatGPT stated 43.4% while Gemini stated 20% to 35%, with the same source asymmetry: ChatGPT referencing Shady Grove's treatment page, Gemini referencing the annual report, the age-and-pregnancy article, and the SART registry.

For ages 41–42, ChatGPT stated 34.0% while Gemini stated 14% to 18%, again with the same source split.

When asked "What is the Shady Grove Fertility lawsuit?", Gemini and Copilot gave incompatible descriptions of the same case. Gemini described E.M. v. Shady Grove as a case about handling, release, and transfer of cryopreserved frozen eggs, with conversion and breach-of-contract claims allowed to proceed toward trial, citing a Maryland federal court opinion, a Lowey firm press release, and a Justia case page. Copilot described the same case as a discrimination and retaliation matter in which a former patient was dismissed from the clinic and a jury ruled in Shady Grove's favor under the D.C. Human Rights Act, citing Justia and vLex case pages for the same docket. The benchmark flagged these as incompatible descriptions of the same proceeding.

US Fertility

AI platforms provided conflicting information about US Fertility's ownership structure. When asked "Who owns US Fertility?", Perplexity stated that US Fertility is physician-owned and physician-led, formed through a partnership between Amulet Capital Partners and Shady Grove Fertility, citing US Fertility's newsroom and about pages. ChatGPT stated that US Fertility is primarily owned by two private-equity firms, L Catterton and Amulet Capital Partners, with physicians holding only about 15%, citing a PR Newswire release and a US Fertility newsroom post. The benchmark flagged three source excerpts from US Fertility's own newsroom describing the organization as "physician-owned and physician-led" as supporting the Perplexity side of the conflict.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How many IVF clinic prompts qualified for the benchmark in October 2026?
• How did the qualified observation base and valid recommendation shortlist share change from July to October 2026?

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; September had 558 collected prompts and 331 qualified observations. The qualified base grew from 243 in July to 315 in August to 331 in September, then eased to 291 in October. The valid recommendation shortlist share moved from 45.3% in July to 40.0% in August to 47.4% in September to 56.0% in October.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The valid recommendation shortlist share rose from 45.3% to 56.0% across the series, while the qualified observation base grew more modestly. The recommendation-shaped answer share also rose, from 30.9% to 33.7%.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which IVF clinics led AI recommendations in October 2026?
• How much did the margin between the leader and second place narrow across the series?

A Narrowing Leader Margin as RMA Network Closes on CCRM Fertility

RMA Network's 12.1-point rise is the only movement across the July-to-October series that the benchmark classifies as a significant riser, while Kindbody's 8.9-point decline is the only movement the benchmark classifies as a significant decliner. The category-level leader position remains stable, but the margin between first and second has narrowed from 19.4 points at baseline to 6.2 points in October.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Which IVF clinics were the significant riser and decliner in October 2026?
• How much did RMA Network gain and Kindbody lose in recommendation coverage?
• Which brands showed sustained upward streaks as watch items?

RMA Network: The Series' Only Significant Riser

RMA Network's valid recommendation coverage rose 12.1 points across the series, from 18.1% in July 2026 to 30.2% in October 2026, a move the benchmark classifies as a significant riser. The October figure also represents an 8.8-point rise from September's 21.4%, itself a significant month-over-month move, giving the brand a two-month upward streak.

Raw presence rose from 27.6% of qualified observations in July to 43.3% in October, a 15.7-point gain. Top-three recommendation rate moved from 10.7% to 16.2%, and rank-one rate from 1.2% to 4.5%.

The brand's absolute valid recommendation count rose from 44 in July to 88 in October, the second highest in the category. 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 prompt types or AI surfaces drove RMA Network's sustained rise, and which competitor's lost placements did it absorb?

Kindbody: The Series' Significant Decliner

Kindbody's valid recommendation coverage fell 8.9 points across the series, from 14.4% in July 2026 to 5.5% in October 2026, a decline the benchmark classifies as a significant decliner, extending a three-month downward streak. The brand's absolute valid recommendation count dropped from 35 in July to 16 in October.

Raw presence also fell sharply, from 24.3% of qualified observations in July to 10.0% in October, a 14.3-point decline. Top-three recommendation rate fell from 8.6% to 2.4%, with the October figure showing the brand received 7 top-three placements. Rank-one rate fell to 0.0% in October, from 0.8% at baseline, meaning the brand received zero rank-one recommendations this period.

The gap between Kindbody and RMA Network widened in every month of the series, from 3.7 points at baseline to 24.7 points in October. Kindbody's gap versus Pacific Fertility Center also moved adversely, from an 8.6-point lead at baseline to a 4.8-point deficit in October.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which specific prompts or surfaces stopped recommending Kindbody across the three-month decline, and which competitor now appears in those placements?

CCRM Fertility: Stable Leadership on a Narrowing Margin

CCRM Fertility's valid recommendation coverage moved from 37.5% in July to 36.4% in October, a 1.1-point decline the benchmark classifies as stable within normal variation. The brand has led the category in every month of the series, but its margin over second place has narrowed from 19.4 points at baseline to 6.2 points in October.

Raw presence fell from 67.9% in July to 54.6% in October, a 13.3-point decline. Top-three rate held at 26.8%, unchanged from baseline, while rank-one rate eased from 16.9% to 11.3%. The brand's valid recommendation count of 106 in October is the highest in the category.

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.

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?

Shady Grove Fertility and Columbia University Fertility Center: The Stable Middle Tier

Shady Grove Fertility's coverage moved from 26.3% in July to 23.0% in October, a 3.3-point decline classified as stable. Raw presence fell from 49.8% to 39.9%, a 9.9-point decline. The brand's 67 valid recommendations in October rank third in the category.

Columbia University Fertility Center's coverage rose from 16.9% to 19.9%, a 3.0-point gain classified as stable, extending a two-month upward streak. The brand holds the highest rank-one rate in the category at 12.7%, on 37 rank-one recommendations, and the highest net sentiment score at 1.0. Its 58 valid recommendations rank fifth.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts convert Shady Grove Fertility's high presence into top-three placement, and why does Columbia University Fertility Center's high rank-one rate not translate into higher overall coverage?

Pacific Fertility Center and Boston IVF: Steady Climbers

Pacific Fertility Center's coverage rose from 5.8% to 10.3%, a 4.5-point gain the benchmark classifies as a watch item — three consecutive monthly increases whose cumulative movement has not yet reached significant-riser levels. Top-three rate rose from 3.3% to 8.9%, with the brand receiving 26 top-three placements.

Boston IVF's coverage rose from 2.5% to 5.5%, a 3.0-point gain also classified as a watch item, with three consecutive monthly increases. Top-three rate rose from 0.4% to 2.8%, and rank-one rate rose from 0.0% in July to 1.7% in October. The brand's 16 valid recommendations in October match its July-and-August presence levels.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts and surfaces drove Pacific Fertility Center's and Boston IVF's sustained upward streaks, and is the pattern shared or distinct?

Spring Fertility, Extend Fertility, and US Fertility: The Smaller Brands

Spring Fertility's coverage moved from 8.6% to 7.9%, a 0.7-point decline classified as stable, though the brand showed a two-month upward streak from August's 5.1%. Its 23 valid recommendations in October represent a recovery from August's 16.

Extend Fertility's coverage fell from 2.1% to 1.0%, a decline classified as stable, on 3 valid recommendations. The brand's net sentiment score fell from 0.4 to 0.1. US Fertility recorded zero valid recommendations in October on 8 qualified mentions, extending a two-month run of zero valid recommendations from September.

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

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• What buyer-intent clusters did the October 2026 IVF clinic prompts cover?
• What can the benchmark not answer about pricing or direct clinic comparisons?

In October 2026, all 291 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

Questions This Section Answers

• What signal did each tracked IVF clinic show in October 2026?
• Which clinics warrant further investigation and why?

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 CiteWorks Studio AI Visibility Industry Market research program.

• AI Visibility Industry Market
• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count brands (US Fertility at 0.0% coverage with zero valid recommendations, Extend Fertility at 1.0% with 3) carry wider relative uncertainty; their movements should be read as directional, not definitive.
• The qualified denominator (291 observations in October) differs from the raw collection (613 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.
• The benchmark detected 6 critical or high-severity AI response inconsistencies across 4 platforms; these reflect conflicting information in AI outputs and are not attributable to any brand's actions.

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, RMA Network's significant rise, 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