How AI Search Is Recommending Online Estate Planning and Wills: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

LegalZoom holds the coverage lead in October 2026 at 73.8% valid recommendation coverage, and the gap to second-place Trust & Will at 72.5% has compressed to just 1.3 points. That is the narrowest margin recorded across the four-month series, down from 4.4 points in July. Trust & Will held the top position as recently as September, so October marks a change at the top of the coverage table even as both brands remain far ahead of the rest of the field.

FreeWill is the clearest downward story of the series. Coverage fell from 74.1% in July to 55.6% in October, a significant 18.5-point decline, with the sharpest single-month drop of 9.5 points landing in September and October holding flat. Rocket Lawyer shows the largest series decline, down 23.2 points from 66.7% to 43.5%, and Quicken WillMaker & Trust is down 19.6 points from 76.4% to 56.8%. Trust & Will is down 12.7 points across the series despite still ranking second. Five of the ten tracked brands recorded significant declines from baseline to current.

Tomorrow is the only significant riser, moving from 0.0% coverage in July to 1.8% in October on 6 valid recommendations. Fabric, GoodTrust, Wealth.com, and Willing round out the stable group. GoodTrust edged up 1.0 point from September to 11.4%, extending a two-month upward streak. Fabric slipped 2.5 points from September to 4.6%, though the move stayed inside normal month-to-month variation.

Against the prior month, the category was mixed rather than directional. LegalZoom gained 6.0 points from September, Trust & Will added 2.1 points, and Rocket Lawyer edged up 0.9 points. FreeWill and Quicken WillMaker & Trust held essentially flat. No brand recorded a significant month-over-month move in October, so the category-level result came from several smaller shifts rather than one dominant swing.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (666 unique questions in July, 665 in October) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, all 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in each month; 371 were relevant and 429 irrelevant in July, and 418 were relevant and 382 irrelevant in October. The public metrics use the 297 qualified observations in July and the 324 in October that survive both qualification stages. August contributed 307 qualified observations and September 338.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

The benchmark detected 11 critical or high severity factual inconsistencies across 5 AI platforms in October 2026.

Rocket Lawyer

Seven high-severity pricing inconsistencies were detected for Rocket Lawyer across ChatGPT, Copilot, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overviews. When asked "How much does Rocket Lawyer charge for a will?", Copilot stated the annual membership costs $239.88 per year while Google AI Mode stated $149 per year for the Standard Plan, citing the company's own pricing page among others. When asked "How much does it cost to make a will on Rocket Lawyer?", ChatGPT stated annual membership starts at about $149 per year while Copilot stated Rocket Legal+ is $239.88 per year, with both answers drawing on pricing pages and review sites.

A separate conflict arose on the same question, with Copilot citing $39.99 per month while Google AI Mode stated $12.41 per month billed annually at $149 per year. When asked "Which is better, Rocket Lawyer vs LegalZoom?", ChatGPT stated memberships range from $149 to $349 per year while Google AI Overviews stated $39.99 to $64.99 per month or annual plans. On the same comparison question, Google AI Overviews stated Rocket Lawyer charges $99 for LLC formation unless on a higher-tier membership while ChatGPT stated formation is free with membership plus state fees.

Two further conflicts concerned monthly membership pricing. When asked "How much does it cost to make a will on Rocket Lawyer?", ChatGPT stated plans start at about $12.41 per month when billed annually while Copilot stated the monthly membership is $39.99 per month. And on the comparison question, ChatGPT stated memberships range from $149 to $349 per year while Google AI Mode stated typically around $39.99 per month. The flagged sources include sources on both sides of several of these conflicts, including the company's own pricing pages and third-party review sites.

LegalZoom

Two high-severity pricing inconsistencies were detected for LegalZoom within Google AI Overviews. When asked "Which is better, LegalZoom or Trust and Will?", one response stated LegalZoom wills start at $149 or more while another stated the basic will starts around $89. One flagged source referenced a Last Will & Testament Bundle at $149 plus $100 for couples.

On the same comparison question, one response stated LegalZoom trusts start at $399 or more while another stated revocable living trust packages range from $499 to $799. The flagged source referenced both a Living Trust Bundle at $399 plus $100 for couples and a Cost tier at $499 plus $100 for couples, suggesting the underlying page carries both figures.

Quicken WillMaker & Trust

One high-severity pricing model inconsistency was detected between Gemini and Google AI Overviews. When asked "What is the best online will and trust site?", Gemini stated the product costs approximately $100 per year as an annual subscription while Google AI Overviews described it as a one-time purchase priced between $109 and $219. The two answers describe incompatible pricing models for the same product.

Trust & Will

One high-severity pricing inconsistency was detected between Gemini and Copilot. When asked "What is the best site to create a living trust?", Gemini stated pricing is typically around $199 for individuals or $299 for couples while Copilot stated $499 and $599. Flagged sources include one citing $199 for individuals, $299 for couples, and a $19 annual membership, and another citing $499 individual and $599 couple for a revocable living trust package that also includes a pour-over will, power of attorney, and healthcare directive.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How many prompt-surface observations qualified for the October benchmark?
• What changed at the category level between July and October?

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

The benchmark-level metrics below aggregate those qualified observations across the full brand set before the brand-by-brand detail that follows.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share rose sharply to 58.6% in October, while the valid recommendation shortlist share eased to 77.5%. That combination means AI systems produced recommendation-oriented answers more often, but a smaller proportion of them met the shortlist bar. September recorded 338 qualified observations, the series high, before October settled to 324. Leadership also changed hands across the series: Trust & Will held the coverage lead from July through September before LegalZoom moved ahead in October.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands lost the most recommendation coverage across the series?
• How narrow was the margin between the top two brands in October?

The coverage lead changed hands as the top two converged to their tightest margin of the series

The category-level change from July to October came from the combination of significant declines across the largest brands rather than any single dominant move. No brand exceeded normal month-to-month variation from September to October, so October's result reflects several smaller repositioning moves layered on top of the wider series-level declines.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brand secured the coverage lead in October, and how did its placement metrics hold up?
• Which brand remained the most frequent first choice despite losing the coverage lead?
• Where did the largest series declines leave brands by October?

LegalZoom: Coverage lead secured as erosion halted

LegalZoom's valid recommendation coverage fell from 80.8% in July to 73.8% in October, a significant 7.0-point decline across the series, but the month-over-month move from September's 67.8% was a 6.0-point gain that lifted the brand into first place. That single-month gain did not cross the significance threshold, so October reads as a partial recovery from the September low rather than a decisive breakout.

Placement held firm: the top-three rate moved from 67.0% in July to 67.6% in October, essentially flat, while the rank-one rate eased 2.4 points to 23.5% on 76 first-place recommendations. Raw mention presence rose 2.5 points to 95.1%, the highest in the category, with 239 valid recommendations.

The distinction to notice is that LegalZoom now leads on coverage while remaining steady on top-three placement and slightly softer on rank-one. That combination suggests the lead comes from breadth of recommendation rather than from being named first more often.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts moved LegalZoom into the coverage lead in October, and did the 2.4-point rank-one decline concentrate on specific surfaces or question types?

Trust & Will: Leader to second as the margin vanishes

Trust & Will's coverage fell from 85.2% in July to 72.5% in October, a significant 12.7-point decline, though the month-over-month move from September's 70.4% was a 2.1-point gain. The brand now sits 1.3 points behind LegalZoom, the narrowest first-to-second margin in the series.

Top-three placement fell 10.7 points from July to 70.4%, a significant decline, while the rank-one rate rose 3.7 points to 33.0% on 107 first-place recommendations, the highest rank-one rate in the category. Raw mention presence eased 4.0 points to 92.6%.

The distinction that matters is that Trust & Will lost the coverage lead while strengthening its position as the most frequent first choice. Being named first more often did not translate into higher overall coverage, which points to a narrower but deeper recommendation footprint.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts stopped producing a Trust & Will recommendation even as its first-place rate rose, and did those prompts shift to LegalZoom or drop the brand entirely?

FreeWill: Flat month after a significant level shift

FreeWill's coverage held at 55.6% in October, unchanged from September, leaving the brand down 18.5 points from 74.1% in July, a significant series decline. The largest single-month move came earlier in the series at 9.5 points, so October reads as stabilization at the lower level rather than continued erosion.

Top-three placement fell 6.7 points from July to 32.7% on 106 top-three placements, and the rank-one rate eased 4.7 points to 14.2% on 46 first-place recommendations. Raw mention presence declined 12.5 points to 67.0%, mirroring the coverage decline. Valid recommendation count stands at 180, down from 220 in July.

The distinction is that FreeWill's visible presence and its recommendation coverage fell in parallel, which is consistent with the brand appearing in fewer responses rather than being pushed down the order in responses where it still appears.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt categories stopped mentioning FreeWill between July and October, and did the September level shift hold because those prompts now consistently omit the brand?

Rocket Lawyer: Largest series decline, October stabilizing

Rocket Lawyer's coverage fell from 66.7% in July to 43.5% in October, a significant 23.2-point decline, the largest in the category across the series. The month-over-month move from September's 42.6% was a 0.9-point gain, so October extends a two-month upward streak at a low level.

Top-three placement slipped 0.6 points from July to 10.2% on 33 top-three placements, and the rank-one rate eased 0.5 points to 1.2% on 4 first-place recommendations. Raw mention presence dropped 25.8 points to 50.3%. Valid recommendation count stands at 141, down from 198 in July.

The distinction is that Rocket Lawyer's placement quality held roughly steady while its presence collapsed by more than half. When the brand appears it still reaches the top tier at a similar rate, but it appears in far fewer responses. Its lead over Tomorrow, Wealth.com, and Willing narrowed by more than 23 points each as Rocket Lawyer's own coverage fell while those three brands held near their starting levels.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt and surface combinations stopped mentioning Rocket Lawyer entirely, and are the two consecutive monthly upticks the beginning of a stabilization or a plateau at the reduced level?

Quicken WillMaker & Trust: Third place on a wide series decline

Quicken WillMaker & Trust's coverage fell from 76.4% in July to 56.8% in October, a significant 19.6-point decline. The month-over-month move from September's 57.1% was a 0.3-point dip, within normal variation.

Top-three placement fell 8.5 points from July to 41.0%, on 133 top-three placements. The rank-one rate eased 3.5 points to 5.6% on 18 first-place recommendations. Raw mention presence dropped 20.2 points to 59.9%, mirroring the coverage decline. Valid recommendation count stands at 184, down from 227 in July.

The distinction is that the brand's presence decline and coverage decline moved together, suggesting AI systems stopped naming Quicken WillMaker & Trust in a meaningful share of responses rather than demoting it within responses where it still appears.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt classes now omit Quicken WillMaker & Trust where they previously included it, and has the brand found a stable level in the high 50s?

GoodTrust: Two-month streak at a modest level

GoodTrust's coverage moved from 12.8% in July to 11.4% in October, a non-significant 1.4-point decline, but the month-over-month move from September's 10.4% was a 1.0-point gain that extended a two-month upward streak. The brand's largest single-month move of 6.3 points came in August, and the partial recovery since then suggests the drop was concentrated in that one month.

Top-three placement rose 0.8 points from July to 1.8% on 6 top-three placements, and the brand recorded no first-place recommendations in the series. Raw mention presence eased 3.1 points to 11.7%. Valid recommendation count stands at 37.

The distinction is the gap between GoodTrust's presence and its placement: the brand is mentioned in roughly one in nine responses but reaches the top three in a small fraction of those, which points to a visibility pattern that does not convert into shortlist placement.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts produce the top-three placements GoodTrust does earn, and why does its broader mention presence not convert into higher coverage?

Tomorrow: The only significant riser in the series

Tomorrow moved from 0.0% coverage in July to 1.8% in October, a significant 1.8-point rise on 6 valid recommendations. The brand entered in August at 2.3%, eased to 1.8% in September, and held there in October. Top-three placement reached 1.5% with 5 top-three placements, and the brand recorded 1 first-place recommendation. Raw mention presence rose 1.5 points to 1.8%.

These are small counts, and the 1.8-point movement should be read with that in mind. It nonetheless represents the only significant upward movement in the category across the four-month series.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts produced Tomorrow's recommendations and first-place placement, and do those prompt categories recur across months?

Fabric: Series-steady with a modest October slip

Fabric's coverage moved from 5.4% in July to 4.6% in October, a non-significant 0.8-point decline. The month-over-month move from September's 7.1% was a 2.5-point dip, also within normal variation, leaving the brand in seventh place.

Top-three placement rose 1.4 points from July to 3.1% on 10 top-three placements, and the rank-one rate moved from 0.0% to 0.9% on 3 first-place recommendations. Raw mention presence eased 1.3 points to 6.8%. Valid recommendation count stands at 15.

The distinction is that Fabric's placement metrics improved while its coverage slipped, which suggests the change is about the number of responses the brand appears in rather than its standing in responses where it appears.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts drove the September peak and the October pullback, and did the rank-one placements come from a distinct prompt set?

Wealth.com and Willing: Minimal footprint held flat

Wealth.com held at 0.3% coverage across all four months on 1 valid recommendation, with no top-three or first-place placements in the series. Raw mention presence eased 0.1 points to 0.6%.

Willing fell from 1.0% in August and 0.9% in September to 0.0% in October, with no valid recommendations and a 0.3% raw mention presence. The brand has recorded a two-month downward streak in coverage.

These are single-observation and low-count positions, so month-to-month movement carries limited weight. Both brands remain at the edge of the recommendation set.

Highest-priority diagnostic: For Wealth.com, what would need to change for its single qualifying observation to become a repeated placement? For Willing, did the October return to zero reflect a specific prompt set dropping the brand?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters qualified for the public benchmark?
• What can the aggregate metrics not yet explain about pricing or head-to-head comparisons?

Every qualified observation in July through October fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. No observations qualified for the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters, even though the October collection universe contained pricing-analysis and comparison-analysis response types. The public benchmark therefore answers which brand AI systems recommend, but the aggregate metrics cannot yet distinguish how price sensitivity or direct head-to-head comparison influence those recommendations. The question of why competing platforms state materially different prices, as documented in the inconsistency section above, sits outside the coverage metric itself.

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.

Interpretation Notes

• The qualified benchmark set (324 observations in October) is smaller than the raw collection universe (800 prompt-surface observations), and brand-level percentages are calculated within the qualified set.
• Small-count movements, such as Tomorrow at 1.8% coverage (6 valid recommendations), Wealth.com at 0.3% (1 valid recommendation), and Willing at 0.0% (0 valid recommendations), should be interpreted with caution.
• Directional analysis 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 reveal which brands gained or lost recommendation credit in October, but they do not explain the mechanics behind those movements. Which high-intent prompts are being won, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers are the questions that sit beneath the category-level numbers.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It turns the benchmark's directional signals into actionable intelligence for a single brand's position in the AI recommendation landscape.

Request an AI visibility audit