How AI Search Is Recommending Medical Spas: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

LaserAway remains the category leader in valid recommendation coverage for September 2026 at 27.4%, despite a significant decline from its July 2026 baseline of 35.9%. The brand widened its lead over the next closest brand, Milan Laser Hair Removal, to 7.1 points. The category's sharpest upward mover month-over-month was Ever/Body, which rose 1.8 points from 0.0% in August to 1.8% in September, a significant recovery after disappearing entirely in the prior month.

The sharpest single-month decline was not concentrated in one brand. LaserAway, Milan Laser Hair Removal, SEV Laser, and SkinSpirit all remain classified as significant decliners relative to the July 2026 baseline, though several posted gains from August. LaserAway rose 12.0 points from August's 15.4%, and Milan Laser Hair Removal rose 4.2 points from 16.1%, though both remain below their July baselines.

Across the full July-to-September series, the top of the category has compressed and stabilized at lower levels. LaserAway fell 8.5 points from baseline to current, Milan Laser Hair Removal fell 14.6 points, and SEV Laser fell 14.1 points. The qualified observation count rebounded to 325 in September from 149 in August, closer to July's 295, and the benchmark's instrument version remained consistent across all three months.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (455 unique questions in July, 504 in September) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in each month; 725 were relevant and 75 were irrelevant in July, and 737 were relevant and 63 were irrelevant in September. The public metrics use the 295 qualified observations from July and the 325 qualified observations from September that survive both qualification stages. August's intermediate run used 149 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.

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. August's intermediate month saw 149 qualified observations, the lowest in the series.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The August intermediate month dipped to 6.7% recommendation-shaped answer share before recovering to 21.5% in September. The current month remains below the July baseline, indicating the category has not returned to its earlier recommendation intensity.

AI Recommendation Trend

LaserAway holds the category lead, but the gap to Milan Laser Hair Removal has stabilized at a wider margin than in July, while SEV Laser and SkinSpirit have settled into a clear second tier.

The category-level change came from the combination of several significant declines across the upper tier relative to baseline, rather than any single brand's movement. No brand exceeded normal variation on the upside in the current month relative to July.

What Changed This Month

LaserAway

LaserAway holds the category lead at 27.4% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026. That is down 8.5 points from 35.9% in July 2026, a significant decline, but up 12.0 points from August's 15.4%, which was also a significant move. The brand's presence rate rose to 84.3% of observations, up 3.3 points from 81.0% in July and up from 73.8% in August.

Top-three placement fell from 30.9% of observations in July to 22.1% in September, and rank-one recommendations fell from 9.2% to 6.2%. In absolute terms, LaserAway earned 89 valid recommendations in September, down from 106 in July but up sharply from 23 in August.

LaserAway remains the most present brand in the category by a wide margin, yet the gap between presence at 84.3% and coverage at 27.4% means the brand is mentioned often but recommended in a minority of those mentions.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types produce recommendations versus mere mentions, and where do competitors take the recommendation when LaserAway appears without being named first.

Milan Laser Hair Removal

Milan Laser Hair Removal holds second place at 20.3% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, down 14.6 points from 34.9% in July 2026. That is a significant decline relative to baseline, though the brand rose 4.2 points from August's 16.1%, a move not classified as significant.

Presence fell from 53.2% of observations in July to 44.0% in September. Top-three placement dropped from 29.1% to 18.5%, a decline of 10.6 points. Rank-one recommendations fell from 18.3% to 12.3%. In absolute terms, the brand earned 66 valid recommendations in September, down from 103 in July.

Milan Laser Hair Removal still leads the category in rank-one recommendations at 12.3% of observations, ahead of LaserAway's 6.2%, and its average recommended rank of 1.72 is the strongest in the category.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces show the largest drop in recommendation frequency, and whether the rank-one advantage can be extended to more prompts.

SEV Laser

SEV Laser holds third place at 8.6% coverage in September 2026, down 14.1 points from 22.7% in July 2026. The brand was nearly flat from August's 8.7%, and this is the second consecutive month of decline relative to baseline, a two-month downward streak.

Presence fell from 50.8% of observations in July to 44.3% in September. Top-three placement fell from 17.3% to 5.9%, and rank-one recommendations dropped from 5.8% to 1.5%. In absolute terms, the brand earned 28 valid recommendations in September, down from 67 in July.

SEV Laser's decline is concentrated in how often the brand appears in recommendation lists at all, not in position quality — its average recommended rank improved to 2.50.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt categories previously generated SEV Laser recommendations and now produce competitor names instead.

SkinSpirit

SkinSpirit holds fourth place at 4.9% coverage in September 2026, down 4.6 points from 9.5% in July 2026, a significant decline. The brand rose 0.9 points from August's 4.0%, a move not classified as significant.

Presence fell from 12.9% of observations in July to 7.1% in September, a significant decline. Top-three placement fell from 7.8% to 3.7%, also significant. In absolute terms, SkinSpirit earned 16 valid recommendations in September, down from 28 in July.

SkinSpirit's net sentiment held steady at 0.7, the highest among brands with meaningful mention volume — the brand is regarded positively when discussed; the issue is the thinning of discussion itself.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt patterns still surface SkinSpirit, and which competitor benefits in the prompts where the brand lost presence.

Ever/Body and Skin Laundry

Ever/Body rose from 0.0% coverage in August 2026 to 1.8% in September 2026, a significant recovery of 1.8 points. The brand's 6 valid recommendations in September match its July count of 6. Presence returned to 2.5% of observations from 0.0% in August.

Skin Laundry rose from 0.0% in August to 1.5% in September, a significant move of 1.5 points. The brand earned 5 valid recommendations, down from 6 in July. Presence reached 3.4% of observations, up from 1.3% in August.

Both brands operate at volumes where a handful of prompts determines the percentage; the directional recovery after the August disappearance is notable, but the counts remain too small for structural interpretation.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the August drop was an artifact of the smaller observation month or a durable change now reversing.

Restore Hyper Wellness and Sono Bello

Restore Hyper Wellness moved from 0.3% coverage in July 2026 to 0.6% in September 2026, a rise not classified as significant. The brand earned 2 valid recommendations in September, up from 1 in July.

Sono Bello moved from 0.3% in July to 0.9% in September, also not classified as significant. The brand earned 3 valid recommendations, up from 1 in July. Its presence rate rose from 1.0% to 3.4% of observations.

Both brands' presence is growing even as their coverage stays low, which means they are being mentioned more often without converting those mentions into recommendations.

Highest-priority diagnostic: What AI systems say about these brands when they mention them without recommending, and which prompt types now surface them at all.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 325 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The pricing and value cluster and the multi-brand comparison cluster registered no qualified observations, consistent with July and August. Notably, AI systems produced pricing analysis answers in 135 of 325 responses, up from 73 of 295 in July, yet those answers were not qualified as buyer-intent observations in the pricing cluster.

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 rising volume of pricing analysis answers suggests AI systems are frequently addressing cost, but the public data does not attribute those answers to specific brands in a way that supports 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

• The August 2026 qualified observation count of 149 was the lowest in the series; September's recovery to 325 observations changes the denominator for month-over-month comparisons.
• Several small-count brands (Ever/Body, Restore Hyper Wellness, Skin Laundry, Sono Bello) operate at volumes where a single prompt can move the percentage by more than a point.
• The benchmark identifies movement worth investigating; it does not establish cause for any gain or decline.

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 hold the lead in aggregate while losing the rank-one position on the highest-value prompts, or gain presence without converting that visibility into 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