How AI Search Is Recommending Medical Spas: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Milan Laser Hair Removal leads medical spa recommendation coverage in the August 2026 benchmark at 16.1%, narrowly ahead of LaserAway at 15.4% — a gap of 0.7 points. Both brands recorded significant declines from the July 2026 baseline: LaserAway fell 20.5 points from 35.9%, the largest movement in the category this month, and Milan Laser Hair Removal fell 18.8 points from 34.9%. Milan Laser Hair Removal holds the lead only because its decline was marginally smaller than LaserAway's.

Six of the ten tracked brands recorded significant declines in valid recommendation coverage between July and August 2026: Ever/Body (2.0% to 0.0%), LaserAway (35.9% to 15.4%), Milan Laser Hair Removal (34.9% to 16.1%), SEV Laser (22.7% to 8.7%), Skin Laundry (2.0% to 0.0%), and SkinSpirit (9.5% to 4.0%). No brand recorded a significant increase this month. Body Details, Ideal Image, Restore Hyper Wellness, and Sono Bello were stable within normal month-to-month variation. This is the first month-over-month comparison in the tracked series; August establishes the current pattern of broad decline in valid recommendation coverage across most tracked brands.

The qualified observation count fell from 295 in July to 149 in August, and the recommendation-shaped answer share fell from 37.6% to 6.7%. The valid recommendation shortlist share fell from 43.4% to 14.8%. The benchmark cannot distinguish platform behavior from measurement effects; the data describes the output distribution, not its cause.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (455 unique questions) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe, in both July and August 2026. Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in each month; 725 were relevant and 75 irrelevant in July, and 725 were relevant and 75 irrelevant in August. The public metrics use the 295 qualified observations from July and the 149 qualified observations from August that survive 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.

These qualified counts anchor every brand-level metric in this report. The metrics below summarize how the category's answer composition shifted between the two months.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

This series spans July 2026 to August 2026, with July as the baseline and August as the current month.

AI Recommendation Trend

The category's center has contracted sharply, compressing the gap between the top two brands to under one point.

The scale of movement exceeds normal month-to-month variation for six brands. The category-level change came from the combination of several large declines across the leader group rather than a single brand's movement.

What Changed This Month

Milan Laser Hair Removal

Milan Laser Hair Removal moved from 34.9% valid recommendation coverage in July 2026 to 16.1% in August 2026, a significant decline of 18.8 points. Despite this sharp fall, the brand now holds the category lead because its decline was slightly smaller than LaserAway's.

The brand's presence rate fell from 53.2% of observations to 40.9%. Rank-one recommendations dropped from 18.3% to 4.0%, and top-three placements fell from 29.1% to 8.7%. In absolute terms, Milan Laser Hair Removal earned 24 valid recommendations in August, down from 103 in July.

The distinction to notice: Milan Laser Hair Removal's absolute recommendation count remains close to LaserAway's, and the gap between the two brands has compressed to the point where they are nearly interchangeable in the current benchmark.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types still produce a Milan Laser Hair Removal recommendation, and which competitor now takes the recommendation when the brand loses?

LaserAway

LaserAway fell from 35.9% in July 2026 to 15.4% in August 2026, the largest single decline in the category at 20.5 points. The brand went from category leader to second place, now trailing Milan Laser Hair Removal by 0.7 points.

The brand's presence rate dipped from 81.0% to 73.8%, remaining the highest in the category. Top-three placements fell from 30.9% to 8.7%, and rank-one recommendations dropped from 9.2% to 2.7%. In absolute terms, LaserAway earned 23 valid recommendations in August, down from 106 in July.

The distinction to notice: LaserAway remains the most visible brand in the category by presence, but that visibility is converting into recommendations less often this month. The gap between how often the brand appears and how often it is recommended widened.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces and prompts still recommend LaserAway, and what do AI systems say about the brand when they mention it without recommending it?

SEV Laser

SEV Laser declined from 22.7% in July 2026 to 8.7% in August 2026, a significant drop of 14.0 points. The brand remains in third place but now sits roughly 7 points behind the top two.

The brand's presence rate fell from 50.8% to 43.6%. Rank-one recommendations dropped from 5.8% to 2.0%, and top-three placements fell from 17.3% to 3.4%. In absolute terms, SEV Laser earned 13 valid recommendations in August, down from 67 in July.

The distinction to notice: SEV Laser's average recommended rank improved slightly to 2.17, meaning that when the brand was recommended, it tended to sit higher in the list. The decline is concentrated in frequency, not position.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types still surface SEV Laser in a top-three slot, and where has the brand lost recommendation frequency?

SkinSpirit

SkinSpirit fell from 9.5% in July 2026 to 4.0% in August 2026, a significant decline of 5.5 points. The brand remains in fourth place with a smaller share.

The brand's presence rate dropped from 12.9% to 5.4%. Rank-one recommendations fell to zero from 2.0%, and top-three placements dropped from 7.8% to 2.0%. In absolute terms, SkinSpirit earned 6 valid recommendations in August, down from 28 in July.

The distinction to notice: SkinSpirit's net sentiment held near 0.75, the highest among brands with meaningful mentions this month. That points to positive regard when the brand is discussed, but the discussion itself has thinned considerably.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts still mention SkinSpirit favorably, and what changed in the surfaces where the brand previously earned recommendations?

Ever/Body and Skin Laundry

Both brands fell to zero valid recommendation coverage in August 2026. Ever/Body dropped from 2.0% in July (6 valid recommendations) to 0.0% with no valid recommendations. Skin Laundry dropped from 2.0% (6 valid recommendations) to 0.0% with no valid recommendations. Both declines were significant.

These are small-count movements. Ever/Body's presence fell from 2.4% to 0.0%, and Skin Laundry's presence fell from 3.0% to 1.3%. At these volumes, a single month's swing can move a brand from visible to invisible without a structural cause.

The distinction to notice: Skin Laundry retained a small presence (2 mentions in August) but earned no recommendations. Ever/Body had zero mentions in the qualified set. The practical difference between 0.0% and 2.0% is a handful of prompts, which limits interpretation.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the loss is isolated to specific prompt patterns or reflects a wider absence from the surfaces where these brands previously appeared.

Restore Hyper Wellness

Restore Hyper Wellness moved from 0.3% in July 2026 to 0.7% in August 2026, a rise of 0.4 points. The movement did not clear the threshold for significance, and it ran against the category's overall pattern of decline this month.

The brand earned 1 valid recommendation in August, matching the 1 earned in July, while its presence rate rose from 2.0% to 4.0%. The average recommended rank was 4, meaning the recommendation did not place in the top three.

The distinction to notice: Restore Hyper Wellness gained presence while most other brands lost it. At this scale, the movement is a single prompt or two, which limits interpretation beyond noting the direction.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts produced the new mentions, and whether that presence can hold at larger observation volumes.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In August 2026, all 149 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The pricing and value cluster and the multi-brand comparison cluster registered no qualified observations in either month. This marks a shift in the response mix: AI systems generated pricing analysis answers in 96 of 149 responses, yet those answers were not qualified as buyer-intent observations in the pricing or comparison clusters.

The public benchmark therefore measures which brand AI recommends when shoppers ask directly, but it cannot yet answer price positioning questions or head-to-head comparison questions. The commercial question of which brand AI names as the best value, or which brand wins a direct comparison, remains unanswered by the public data.

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

• The qualified observation count fell from 295 in July to 149 in August; percentage movements over a smaller denominator can amplify apparent change.
• The shift in response mix toward pricing analysis answers reduced the number of recommendation-shaped answers available for analysis.
• The benchmark identifies changes worth investigating; it does not establish cause.

Next Step

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

The aggregate percentages hide the questions that matter: which high-intent prompts are won, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI associates with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. A brand can lose coverage in aggregate while holding an advantage in the highest-value prompts, or win mentions while losing recommendations.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy.

Request an AI visibility audit