How AI Search Is Recommending Pet Food Delivery Services: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

The Farmer's Dog remains the category leader in September 2026, with valid recommendation coverage of 57.8%, holding an 11.6-point lead over second-place Ollie (46.2%). No brand moved beyond normal month-to-month variation from August to September, so the commercial picture this month is one of stabilization after two months of broad downward movement.

The more consequential story sits at the series level. Nine of ten tracked brands registered significant coverage declines from the July baseline to September, and every brand except Sundays for Dogs now sits below its July level. The largest fall belongs to The Farmer's Dog itself, Down 15.8 points from 73.6% to 57.8%, followed by Ollie (Down 14.5 points), Open Farm (Down 13.6 points), and Nom Nom (Down 13.0 points). No brand recorded a significant rise over the full series.

What changed from August to September is comparatively quiet. Spot & Tango edged up 0.6 points and Sundays for Dogs rose 1.2 points, but neither moved beyond normal variation. Chewy, JustFoodForDogs Vet Support, Nom Nom, Ollie, Open Farm, Petco, PetFlow, and The Farmer's Dog all posted small declines that stayed within normal month-to-month range. The category is settling at lower coverage levels rather than continuing the sharp descent seen between July and August.

This benchmark tracked 800 prompt-surface observations in September 2026 (610 unique questions), following 800 in August (637 unique questions) and 800 in July (578 unique questions). All prompts in each month mentioned a tracked brand or competitor. In September, 759 were judged relevant and 41 irrelevant; in August, 722 were relevant and 78 irrelevant; in July, 767 were relevant and 33 irrelevant. The public analysis uses the 559 qualified observations in September, 521 in August, and 568 in July 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.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The following figures summarize the aggregate benchmark across both months, before any brand-level breakdown.

The intermediate month matters here: August saw recommendation-shaped answer share rise to 55.1%, only for September to settle back to 47.8%. The valid recommendation shortlist share has declined in each consecutive month, from 85.2% in July to 73.9% in August to 67.3% in September, meaning fewer qualified answers are producing valid shortlists that include the tracked brands.

AI Recommendation Trend

The category leader held through a two-month compression, but the full spread of recommendation credit shifted downward across nearly the entire field from July to September.

Nine of ten brands moved beyond normal month-to-month variation from July to September, all in the same direction; Sundays for Dogs was the only stable brand across the series. August to September itself was quiet, with no brand moving beyond normal variation. The category-level shift is best understood as the cumulative effect of the July-to-August declines plus continued, smaller downward drift in September.

What Changed This Month

The Farmer's Dog

The category leader's valid recommendation coverage moved from 61.4% in August to 57.8% in September, a decline of 3.6 points that stayed within normal month-to-month variation. Over the full series, coverage fell from 73.6% in July to 57.8% in September, a significant 15.8-point decline.

The top-three rate fell from 56.9% in July to 38.8% in September, and the rank-one rate fell from 44.2% to 27.0%, a 17.2-point drop. The brand's raw mention presence slipped from 81.0% to 76.6% over the same period. The Farmer's Dog had 418 valid recommendations in July, 320 in August, and 323 in September.

The distinction to notice: presence stayed high while top placement weakened sharply. The Farmer's Dog is still the most visible brand in the category, but AI systems are markedly less likely to put it in the first position than they were in July. Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompt types or AI surfaces are now routing the top recommendation elsewhere, and which competitor is inheriting those rank-one slots.

Ollie

Ollie holds second place with valid recommendation coverage of 46.2% in September, down from 49.3% in August (a 3.1-point move within normal variation) and from 60.7% in July (a significant 14.5-point decline over the series).

The top-three rate fell from 40.8% in July to 24.5% in September, a significant 16.3-point drop, while the rank-one rate held nearly flat at 2.5% versus 2.8%. Ollie had 345 valid recommendations in July, 257 in August, and 258 in September. The brand's gap to the leader narrowed slightly from 12.9 points in July to 11.6 points in September.

The distinction: Ollie lost second and third placement slots much faster than it lost first-choice recommendations. Its rank-one count was 16 in both July and August, then 14 in September, while overall coverage compressed sharply. Highest-priority diagnostic: which brand is occupying the second and third slots that Ollie previously held, and whether the pattern is consistent across surfaces.

Open Farm

Open Farm's valid recommendation coverage was 32.0% in September, down from 37.2% in August (a 5.2-point move within normal variation) and from 45.6% in July (a significant 13.6-point decline over the series).

Raw mention presence fell from 49.5% to 39.9% across the series, and the top-three rate declined from 16.4% to 12.2%. The rank-one rate held essentially flat at 5.2% versus 5.3%. Open Farm had 259 valid recommendations in July, 194 in August, and 179 in September.

The distinction: presence fell alongside coverage, unlike some brands that held presence while losing recommendations. Open Farm's decline touches both visibility and recommendation placement. Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompt categories or evidence sources stopped surfacing Open Farm, and whether the loss is concentrated on specific AI surfaces.

Nom Nom

Nom Nom's valid recommendation coverage was 22.4% in September, down 0.4 points from August and 13.0 points from July's 35.4%, a significant decline over the series. Raw mention presence fell from 41.2% to 32.2%, and the top-three rate fell from 14.6% to 7.0% across the same period.

The brand had 201 valid recommendations in July, 119 in August, and 125 in September. Rank-one recommendations were 5 in July, 4 in August, and 1 in September. Net sentiment held positive at 0.8 in September.

Nom Nom's largest single-month move was the 12.6-point drop from July to August; September added only modest further decline. The brand also recorded 4 negative-sentiment observations in September after none in prior months, a small but new signal. Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompts drove the presence and top-three decline, and whether the new negative sentiment cluster traces to a specific evidence source.

Spot & Tango

Spot & Tango's valid recommendation coverage was 28.4% in September, up 0.6 points from August but down 9.5 points from July's 37.9%, a significant decline over the series. This makes Spot & Tango the only brand besides Sundays for Dogs to post an August-to-September gain, though the move stayed within normal variation.

The brand had 215 valid recommendations in July, 145 in August, and 159 in September. The top-three rate declined from 13.9% to 10.7% across the series, and the rank-one rate dipped from 2.8% to 2.3%. Raw mention presence fell from 40.3% to 35.8%.

The distinction: Spot & Tango's August-to-September uptick interrupted, but did not reverse, the broader two-month decline. The September level remains 9.5 points below July, and the brand has not recovered the mid-list coverage it lost in August. Highest-priority diagnostic: whether the September rebound is concentrated in specific prompts or surfaces that could be reinforced.

Chewy

Chewy's valid recommendation coverage was 14.7% in September, effectively flat against August's 14.8% (Down 0.1 point) but down 5.4 points from July's 20.1%, a significant decline over the series. The brand had 114 valid recommendations in July, 77 in August, and 82 in September.

Raw mention presence held steady at 49.9% in September versus 49.6% in July, while the rank-one rate fell from 7.6% to 5.2% and the top-three rate from 8.8% to 6.8%. The average recommended rank improved from 2.84 to 2.72 across the series, meaning when Chewy is recommended, it appears higher on the list.

The distinction: presence held steady while recommendation credit fell, and when Chewy is recommended it now ranks higher. This is a visibility-versus-recommendation divergence where the brand is mentioned as often but steered into fewer shortlists. Highest-priority diagnostic: whether AI systems are mentioning Chewy in informational answers while directing actual recommendations elsewhere.

JustFoodForDogs Vet Support

JustFoodForDogs Vet Support's valid recommendation coverage was 32.9% in September, down 0.1 point from August and 9.9 points from July's 42.8%, a significant decline over the series. The brand had 243 valid recommendations in July, 172 in August, and 184 in September.

Raw mention presence fell from 45.8% to 39.4% across the series, a significant 6.4-point drop. The rank-one rate actually improved slightly, from 6.2% to 6.4%, with 35 rank-one recommendations in July and 36 in both August and September. The top-three rate declined from 22.4% to 20.6%.

The distinction: this brand lost overall coverage and presence while slightly improving its rank-one position. Its most loyal recommendations are holding even as broader mention declines. Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompts stopped mentioning JustFoodForDogs Vet Support, and whether the loss sits in general awareness prompts rather than specific use cases.

Petco

Petco's valid recommendation coverage was 6.6% in September, down from 8.2% in August and 9.9% in July, a significant 3.3-point decline over the series. The brand had 56 valid recommendations in July, 43 in August, and 37 in September.

The top-three rate declined from 5.3% to 2.9% across the series, a significant 2.4-point drop. Raw mention presence was comparatively stable at 37.7% in July and 36.3% in September. Net sentiment was modestly positive at 0.2 in September.

The distinction: Petco maintains broad presence but converts very little of it into recommendations, and its top-three conversion weakened over the series. The brand remains present in the category without earning placement near the top of lists. Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompts still yield Petco recommendations, and what distinguishes them from the larger set where the brand is mentioned but not recommended.

PetFlow

PetFlow's valid recommendation coverage was 3.0% in September, down 0.1 point from August and 2.5 points from July's 5.5%, a significant decline over the series. The brand had 31 valid recommendations in July, 16 in August, and 17 in September.

The rank-one rate remained at zero in all three months. Raw mention presence was stable at 7.0% in September versus 7.8% in July. The top-three rate declined from 0.9% to 0.4%.

PetFlow's figures should be read with the small-count caveat: 17 valid recommendations in September is a thin base for interpreting movement. The brand maintains marginal presence but does not earn top placement in the current prompt set. Highest-priority diagnostic: which specific prompts still recommend PetFlow, and whether any surface family offers a foothold for growth.

Sundays for Dogs

Sundays for Dogs was the only stable brand across the full series, with valid recommendation coverage of 3.9% in September versus 4.0% in July, a 0.1-point decline within normal variation. The brand rose 1.2 points from August's 2.7%, also within normal variation.

The brand had 23 valid recommendations in July, 14 in August, and 22 in September. The top-three rate moved from 0.0% in July to 1.1% in September, a significant shift on a small base, and the rank-one rate moved from 0.0% to 0.5%, with 3 rank-one recommendations in September.

Sundays for Dogs recorded its first top-three and rank-one recommendations of the series in September, though the counts are small (6 top-three, 3 rank-one). The brand remains a small-count case where monthly movement should be read cautiously. Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompts produced those first rank-one recommendations, and whether they point to a specific use case or evidence source that could be built on.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Across all three months, every qualified observation fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The benchmark's current prompt set did not produce qualified observations in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters. The public benchmark can therefore speak to which brands AI systems recommend first, but it cannot yet answer commercial questions about price positioning, value perception, or head-to-head comparison outcomes. Those questions require a prompt set that explicitly asks about cost and competitive choice.

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

• Movement is directional, not causal. A coverage decline identifies where attention is warranted; it does not explain why the change occurred.
• This month's figures should be read against the qualified benchmark set (559 observations), not the raw collection universe (800 prompts). Percentages are calculated on the qualified set.
• Small-count brands (PetFlow, Sundays for Dogs) warrant caution in interpreting month-over-month movement; 17 and 22 valid recommendations respectively are thin bases.
• The benchmark's public metrics do not yet cover pricing, value, or head-to-head comparison prompts, so no conclusions about those commercial questions should be drawn from this data.

Next Step

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

Beneath the aggregate percentages sit the questions that matter most: which high-intent prompts does a brand win, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. For The Farmer's Dog, which held the lead but saw its rank-one rate fall 17.2 points since July, the audit question is whether leadership is eroding across all prompt types or only in specific use cases. For Ollie, the question is which brands are filling the second and third slots it previously held.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It moves from "coverage declined" to "here is where, why, and what to address first."

Request an AI visibility audit