How AI Search Is Recommending Online Doctors: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Sesame leads valid recommendation coverage at 49.6% in October 2026, extending the leadership it has held across the series and opening a 1.3-point gap over Doctor on Demand at 48.3%. The category's headline event this month is a record-keeping issue, not a competitive one: PlushCare appears in this month's data under a lowercase identifier (plushcare) separate from the casing used in prior months (PlushCare). Read as a single brand, PlushCare's coverage sits at 41.6% in October 2026 against 46.5% in July 2026, a 4.9-point decline that stays inside normal month-to-month variation. Read as two tracked strings, one series ends at 34.4% in September 2026 and a new one begins at 41.6% in October 2026. The benchmark has not yet told readers which reading is correct, and this report flags that ambiguity rather than resolving it.

Doctor on Demand rose 12.5 points from September 2026 to October 2026, a significant month-over-month move, landing at 48.3% coverage with a 37.7% top-three rate and a 14.0% rank-one rate, both well above their July 2026 levels. Teladoc Health rose 7.2 points month to month to 45.5% coverage, with its rank-one rate climbing to 28.0% from 14.3% in July 2026 and its top-three rate climbing to 40.2% from 24.9%. Sesame also rose 7.2 points from the prior month to 49.6%, with a 34.0% top-three rate and a 12.9% rank-one rate.

PlushCare is the sharpest decliner on the same-brand reading, down 4.9 points from July 2026, and its own tracked series fell 34.4 points from September 2026 to October 2026 before the casing changed. Amwell rose 4.9 points from the prior month, a significant single-month move that lifted its coverage from 18.8% in September 2026 to 23.7% in October 2026, its strongest reading in the series. MDLive extended a two-month rise in coverage, reaching 30.4% in October 2026 from 28.2% in July 2026, with its top-three rate rising to 19.1% from 11.2%; both moves stay within normal month-to-month variation.

Against the prior month, five entries recorded significant moves: Amwell, Doctor on Demand, Sesame, and Teladoc Health on the rise, plus the lowercase plushcare string appearing for the first time. Against the July 2026 baseline, the only moves that exceed normal variation are tied to the identifier break itself: the new plushcare string enters at 41.6% coverage and the PlushCare casing's series ends at a 46.5-point baseline decline. Every other tracked brand's baseline-to-current coverage move — including Teladoc Health's 5.4-point rise, Doctor on Demand's essentially flat read, and MDLive's 2.2-point rise — sits within normal variation. The leader has not changed since the benchmark began tracking this series.

Each monthly benchmark run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (549 unique questions in July 2026 and 603 in October 2026) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. All 800 prompts in each month mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 651 were relevant and 149 were irrelevant in July 2026, and 674 were relevant and 126 were irrelevant in October 2026. The public metrics use the 574 qualified observations from July 2026 and 565 from October 2026 that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How many of the 800 monthly prompts actually count toward the brand percentages?
• Did the qualified benchmark size change between July and 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.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The core benchmark-level metrics below summarize measurement conditions across both months before the brand-level analysis begins.

The recommendation-shaped answer share rose from 44.8% in July 2026 to 61.1% in October 2026, meaning AI systems structured more online doctor answers as direct recommendations this month than at any point in the series. The valid recommendation shortlist share also rose, from 57.7% to 74.7%. September 2026 was the intermediate low point at 35.0% and 52.8%, so October 2026 represents a sharp reversal of that pullback rather than a continuation. The category leader by coverage changed from Doctor on Demand to Sesame across the series, with the leadership shift already visible by September 2026.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which online doctor brands now make up the top recommendation cluster, and how far apart are they?
• Which brands moved most on coverage against the July 2026 baseline?

A Top Cluster Tightened to 4.1 Points as PlushCare's Identifier Split

Sesame's 2.6-point baseline rise and Doctor on Demand's 13.0-point top-three gain pulled the leading brands back toward their July 2026 levels, reconstituting a top group spanning 45.5% to 49.6% across Sesame, Doctor on Demand, and Teladoc Health.

On the primary coverage metric, none of the ten tracked brands recorded a baseline-to-current move large enough to exceed normal month-to-month variation; the only baseline-exceeding moves this month trace to the PlushCare/plushcare identifier split. Month-over-month, Amwell, Doctor on Demand, Sesame, and Teladoc Health each posted a significant prior-to-current gain in coverage, which is what pulled the leading cluster back toward its July 2026 spread.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands posted significant month-over-month coverage gains in October 2026?
• Why is the PlushCare identifier break the only move that exceeds normal variation?

Sesame: Leadership Extended With Balanced Placement

Sesame's valid recommendation coverage rose from 47.0% in July 2026 to 49.6% in October 2026, a 2.6-point baseline gain that stays within normal month-to-month variation, and lifted 7.2 points from September 2026, a move that exceeded normal variation. The brand has held the coverage lead across every month in the series.

Placement metrics moved alongside coverage. Sesame's recommended top-three rate rose from 26.0% in July 2026 to 34.0% in October 2026, an 8.0-point move, and its rank-one rate rose from 10.8% to 12.9%. Sesame recorded 280 valid recommendations in October 2026, up from 270 in July 2026.

A small caveat: Sesame's baseline coverage gain sits inside normal variation, so the significant month-over-month reading may reflect a single strong month rather than a durable shift. Raw mention presence eased slightly, from 61.9% to 60.0%.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types drove the top-three expansion, and does the placement gain hold into November 2026?

Doctor on Demand: Coverage Held While Placement Improved Sharpest in the Category

Doctor on Demand's valid recommendation coverage held essentially flat, sitting at 48.4% in July 2026 and 48.3% in October 2026 — a baseline move inside normal variation — but the brand rose 12.5 points from September 2026, a significant month-over-month move. The prior month's decline, visible in September 2026 at 35.8%, appears to have reversed.

Placement metrics moved more than coverage. Its recommended top-three rate rose from 24.7% in July 2026 to 37.7% in October 2026, a 13.0-point gain, and its rank-one rate rose from 7.5% to 14.0%. Doctor on Demand recorded 273 valid recommendations in October 2026, compared with 278 in July 2026.

The distinction worth noting: coverage held flat while top-three and rank-one both moved up. The brand appears in a similar share of answers but is placed higher within them. Raw mention presence eased slightly, from 68.8% to 66.0%, so the placement gain did not come from being mentioned more often.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces drove the top-three expansion, and are those the same surfaces where Teladoc Health gained rank-one placements?

Teladoc Health: Placement Strength Now Matches the Strongest in the Category

Teladoc Health's valid recommendation coverage rose from 40.1% in July 2026 to 45.5% in October 2026, a 5.4-point baseline gain that sits just inside normal month-to-month variation. The brand rose 7.2 points from September 2026, a significant month-over-month move.

Placement has pulled clearly ahead of the top cluster. Its recommended top-three rate rose from 24.9% in July 2026 to 40.2% in October 2026, a 15.3-point gain. Its rank-one rate rose from 14.3% to 28.0%, a 13.7-point gain. Teladoc Health recorded 257 valid recommendations in October 2026, up from 230 in July 2026.

Teladoc Health's coverage sits near the top of the category, and its placement metrics now exceed both Sesame and Doctor on Demand. Raw mention presence rose from 58.2% to 65.8%, so this brand's rise combines both broader presence and higher placement.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which high-intent prompts now place Teladoc Health first, and does the rank-one rate hold when Sesame and Doctor on Demand placements recover?

PlushCare: Identifier Break Complicates the Series

PlushCare's valid recommendation coverage sat at 46.5% in July 2026, 40.1% in August 2026, and 34.4% in September 2026, declining every month. In October 2026, no observations appear under the PlushCare casing; instead, the data records a separate brand string, plushcare, at 41.6% coverage with a 50.1% raw mention presence rate and a 27.8% top-three rate.

The same-brand reading treats PlushCare and plushcare as one continuing brand: coverage falls from 46.5% in July 2026 to 41.6% in October 2026, a 4.9-point decline inside normal month-to-month variation. On the two-string reading, one series ends at 34.4% in September 2026 and a new one begins at 41.6% in October 2026, and the benchmark currently shows a 34.4-point prior-to-current decline for the PlushCare casing and a 41.6-point prior-to-current rise for plushcare.

The benchmark records the prior-to-current decline for PlushCare as significant and the plushcare appearance as significant. Both movements may be artifacts of casing rather than category behavior. The benchmark cannot resolve this from the current month's data alone.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the October 2026 casing change reflects a taxonomy update in the benchmark or a genuine change in how AI systems name this brand in answers.

Amwell: Significant One-Month Rebound From September's Low

Amwell's valid recommendation coverage rose from 20.7% in July 2026 to 23.7% in October 2026, a 3.0-point baseline gain inside normal variation, and lifted 4.9 points from September 2026, a significant month-over-month move. September 2026 was the series low at 18.8%.

Placement moved in the same direction. Its recommended top-three rate rose from 7.8% in July 2026 to 14.2% in October 2026, a 6.4-point baseline gain. Its rank-one rate eased from 1.6% to 0.5%, moving in the opposite direction. Amwell recorded 134 valid recommendations in October 2026, up from 119 in July 2026.

The distinction here: Amwell's top-three rate rose while its rank-one rate fell slightly. The brand appears in more shortlists but is placed first less often. Raw mention presence rose from 32.8% to 38.0%.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts drove the top-three gain without shifting rank-one placement, and did those come at the expense of the lower half of the top cluster?

MDLive: Two-Month Rise Extended on Both Presence and Placement

MDLive's valid recommendation coverage rose from 28.2% in July 2026 to 30.4% in October 2026, a 2.2-point baseline gain within normal variation, and lifted 3.8 points from September 2026, also within normal variation. The rise extends across two consecutive months and stays within normal month-to-month variation throughout.

Placement moved in the same direction. Its recommended top-three rate rose from 11.2% in July 2026 to 19.1% in October 2026, a 7.9-point gain. Its rank-one rate rose from 0.7% to 1.8%. MDLive recorded 172 valid recommendations in October 2026, up from 162 in July 2026.

Presence moved alongside placement. Raw mention presence rose from 37.5% to 42.8%, a 5.3-point gain. The brand now appears in more answers than it did in July 2026.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces drove the top-three expansion, and does the presence gain convert into coverage gains next month?

Notable Gap: The PlushCare and Teladoc Health Spread Widened Under the Identifier Break

The benchmark records a widened gap between PlushCare and Teladoc Health of 51.9 points across the series. That figure is driven almost entirely by the October 2026 casing break rather than by any change in either brand's underlying recommendation performance: on the same-brand reading, the two brands are separated by just 3.9 points, with Teladoc Health at 45.5% and PlushCare at 41.6%. The gap should be treated as a category observation about identifier stability, not as competitive repositioning between these two brands.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the benchmark's brand taxonomy will align PlushCare and plushcare in future months, which would collapse this apparent gap.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters produced qualified observations this month?
• What pricing and comparison questions can this benchmark not yet answer?

In October 2026, all 565 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, with zero qualified observations in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters. The qualified observations therefore tell a direct-recommendation story: AI systems are answering "which online doctor should I use" style questions, and the benchmark can measure which brands win those recommendations.

Because the Pricing & Value and Multi-Brand Comparison clusters were empty across the full series, the public benchmark cannot yet answer commercial questions about price competitiveness, value positioning, or head-to-head comparison outcomes. Those remain open questions that a company-level analysis could address.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• What is each brand's highest-priority diagnostic based on its October 2026 signal?
• Which brands show placement gains without matching coverage gains?

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

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: HealthTap, K Health, Lemonaid Health, and LiveHealth Online each sit on fewer than 35 valid recommendations in October 2026. Their coverage percentages should be read alongside those absolute counts.
• Identifier break: PlushCare appears as plushcare in October 2026, a separate string from the casing used in July, August, and September 2026. The benchmark treats these as two rows; readers should treat the same-brand reading as directional and not as a resolved series.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: brand percentages are calculated on 574 (July 2026) and 565 (October 2026) qualified observations, not the 800-prompt raw collection.
• 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.

The aggregate percentages answer which brands win AI recommendation credit, but they do not explain the mechanics beneath the movement. 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 are the questions that determine whether a coverage change reflects a fixable visibility issue or a deeper positioning problem.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. Rather than reacting to aggregate movements, the audit identifies the specific levers that drive recommendation outcomes for a single brand.

Request an AI visibility audit