How AI Search Is Recommending Recruiting Agencies: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Robert Half leads the recruiting agencies category in September 2026 with 46.7% valid recommendation coverage, effectively unchanged from its 46.8% July 2026 baseline. Randstad holds second place at 39.1% coverage, up from 38.2% in July 2026, leaving a 7.6-point gap to the leader. The category has re-established a measurable hierarchy after August 2026, when every tracked brand recorded zero recommendation coverage.

Robert Half's rank-one recommendation rate reached 22.9% in September 2026, meaning it was the first-named agency in 141 of 617 qualified observations. Its top-3 rate of 31.6% (195 observations) also leads the category. Randstad posted the strongest upward movement among tracked brands on the top-3 metric, rising 5.7 points from 15.7% in July 2026 to 21.4% in September 2026, the largest top-3 gain among tracked brands this period.

The sharpest declines belong to two executive-search specialists. Spencer Stuart fell 7.1 points, from 21.5% coverage in July 2026 to 14.4% in September 2026, a significant drop. Heidrick & Struggles fell 5.0 points, from 19.8% to 14.8% over the same period, also significant. Both brands recovered from zero in August 2026, but neither regained its July 2026 position. August 2026's uniform zero-coverage result appears to have been a measurement-period anomaly rather than a lasting shift, as all ten brands re-entered the qualified set with positive coverage in September 2026.

The September 2026 collection began with 800 prompt-surface observations (510 unique questions) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. All 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 726 were relevant and 74 were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 617 qualified observations that survive both qualification stages. The July 2026 baseline began from 792 prompt-surface observations (514 unique questions), yielding 521 qualified observations after the same filtering.

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.

The August 2026 interim month recorded 791 source prompts (551 unique questions) yielding 579 qualified observations, but no brand-level recommendation signals. That month's results are treated as an instrument-level anomaly, not a competitive outcome, because all ten brands moved to zero coverage simultaneously and then recovered together in September 2026.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

AI Recommendation Trend

The Category Re-Established Its Leadership Hierarchy With Robert Half and Randstad at the Front

The table below compares each tracked brand's valid recommendation coverage between the July 2026 baseline and the September 2026 report month.

No brand exceeded normal month-to-month variation on the primary coverage metric relative to the July 2026 baseline, with the exception of the two significant decliners. The category-level recovery from August 2026 came from all ten brands simultaneously returning to measurable coverage, not from any single brand's outperformance.

What Changed This Month

Leader: Robert Half

Robert Half's 46.7% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026 effectively matches its July 2026 baseline of 46.8%, a decline of 0.1 points that falls within normal month-to-month variation. After recording no coverage in August 2026, Robert Half re-entered the qualified set with the strongest position in the category, ahead of Randstad by 7.6 points.

Robert Half's rank-one rate of 22.9% (141 observations) and top-3 rate of 31.6% (195 observations) both lead the category. Its raw mention presence rate, however, fell 6.6 points, from 70.6% in July 2026 to 64.0% in September 2026.

The distinction is between presence and recommendation. Robert Half's raw presence rate declined while its recommendation coverage held nearly steady, meaning that within the current dataset a smaller share of responses named Robert Half at all, but its position among the responses that did was largely unchanged.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts drove the 6.6-point presence decline, and did those prompts shift to competitors or to general, non-branded answers?

Notable decliner: Spencer Stuart

Spencer Stuart's 14.4% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026 is down 7.1 points from its 21.5% July 2026 baseline, a significant decline. The brand recorded 89 valid recommendations in 617 qualified observations. Its rank-one rate rose 1.4 points, from 0.2% in July 2026 to 1.6% (10 observations) in September 2026.

Spencer Stuart's raw presence rate fell 3.3 points to 28.7%, and its top-3 rate rose 1.2 points to 7.5%. The combination shows a brand appearing less often but being placed higher when it does appear.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which July 2026 prompts produced Spencer Stuart's higher coverage, and which competitor captured those recommendation slots in September 2026?

Notable decliner: Heidrick & Struggles

Heidrick & Struggles recorded 14.8% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, down 5.0 points from its 19.8% July 2026 baseline, a significant decline. The brand had 91 valid recommendations in 617 qualified observations. Its rank-one rate rose from 0.0% in July 2026 to 0.3% (2 observations) in September 2026.

Both Heidrick & Struggles and Spencer Stuart, the two executive-search specialist brands in the tracked set, declined significantly from July 2026 baselines while the broader staffing and workforce-solutions brands held steadier positions.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Does the shared decline point to a narrowing of AI recommendation credit for executive-search-specific queries, and which brands are absorbing those recommendations?

Widening gap: Randstad vs Spencer Stuart

The coverage gap between Randstad and Spencer Stuart widened from 16.7 points in July 2026 to 24.7 points in September 2026, an increase of 8.0 points. Randstad rose 0.9 points while Spencer Stuart fell 7.1 points, moving the two brands in opposite directions.

This pattern appears across multiple brand pairings rather than in a single brand relationship. The gap between Robert Half and Spencer Stuart widened by 7.0 points over the same period, and the gap between Insight Global and Spencer Stuart widened by 7.5 points.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Are the three widening gaps driven by Spencer Stuart's decline, the other brands' gains, or a combination of both?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

All 617 qualified observations in September 2026 fell into the brand recommendation class. The public benchmark confirms that the category's AI recommendations are heavily concentrated on naming specific agencies, with 177 recommendation shortlists and 146 ranked lists out of 617 observations. Pricing and comparison activity, while present, is too thin to support commercial conclusions. With one pricing analysis and 24 comparison analyses in the qualified set, the benchmark cannot yet answer questions about price, value, or systematic head-to-head evaluation of recruiting agencies.

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
• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• August 2026 recorded zero recommendation coverage across all ten tracked brands, followed by a full recovery in September 2026. This pattern is treated as a measurement-period difference rather than a competitive outcome; all brands returned to positive coverage simultaneously.
• The qualified denominator grew from 521 observations in July 2026 to 617 in September 2026, and the valid recommendation shortlist share rose 1.7 points, so the coverage percentages reflect a larger qualified set.
• Movement between months 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 for September 2026 show Robert Half leading at 46.7%, Randstad closing at 39.1%, and two executive-search specialists declining significantly. But the questions beneath those percentages remain open. Which high-intent prompts is Robert Half winning, and which does it lose? Which competitor takes the recommendation when Spencer Stuart loses coverage? What attributes do AI systems associate with each agency, and which external sources shape those answers?

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. Rather than waiting for the next monthly signal, an audit can identify which specific queries and surfaces drive recommendation outcomes and where each brand's coverage can be strengthened.

Request an AI visibility audit