How AI Search Is Recommending Sunscreen Brands: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

La Roche-Posay remains the recommendation coverage leader in September 2026 at 83.7% of qualified observations, but the month brought genuine movement beneath the surface. The category recorded two significant declines this month: the leader and a mid-tier brand both moved beyond typical month-to-month variation. La Roche-Posay's 5.9-point drop from 89.6% in July is significant within the tracked series, and Cetaphil's 11.9-point slide from 32.0% marks the sharpest single-brand retreat in the category.

The gap between the two leaders narrowed to 5.4 points in September, with EltaMD holding steady at 78.3% while La Roche-Posay slipped. The wider story is concentration at the top: La Roche-Posay, EltaMD, CeraVe, Neutrogena, and Supergoop all remain above 60% valid recommendation coverage, while Cetaphil has now fallen out of that cluster entirely.

Cetaphil is the standout mover this month, down 7.7 points from August alone on top of a 4.2-point decline the month before, a two-month pattern that has cut its coverage by more than a third from baseline. No brand posted a significant rise. The rest of the field moved within normal variation, with Sun Bum recovering 2.9 points after last month's sharp drop and Neutrogena edging up 1.5 points.

The September 2026 benchmark draws on 800 prompt-surface observations across 667 unique questions, all of which mentioned a tracked brand or competitor. Of those, 540 were relevant and 260 irrelevant to the category, leaving 522 qualified observations used for the brand-level metrics in this report. July 2026 drew on the same 800 prompt-surface observations across 650 unique questions, with 568 relevant, 232 irrelevant, and 557 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, which declined from 557 observations in July to 522 in September.

Benchmark-level metrics track the overall answer mix across both months, independent of individual brand performance.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The qualified observation count fell in September as more prompts were judged irrelevant to the category. The September figures continue a two-month trend toward a less recommendation-heavy answer mix. The category leader held across all three months, but with a shrinking margin.

AI Recommendation Trend

A Two-Brand Top Cluster With a Third Brand Closing From Below

Valid recommendation coverage contracted across the board in September, with all nine tracked brands below or flat against their July levels. La Roche-Posay and EltaMD remain a distinct top pair, while CeraVe's stability at 66.5% keeps it the closest challenger to that cluster.

Two brands, Cetaphil and La Roche-Posay, moved beyond what normal month-to-month variation would suggest. The remaining movement was the combination of several smaller, individually stable shifts across the rest of the field.

What Changed This Month

Cetaphil

Cetaphil recorded the sharpest decline in the category, falling 11.9 points from 32.0% valid recommendation coverage in July to 20.1% in September, a significant decline. Valid recommendation count dropped from 178 to 105 observations. The brand also fell 7.7 points from August's 27.8%, a second consecutive significant monthly decline.

The retreat was broad-based. Raw mention presence fell 10.5 points from 36.6% to 26.1%, top-three recommendation rate fell 4.7 points from 9.9% to 5.2%, and rank-one rate fell 2.0 points from 2.0% to 0.0%, meaning no September observation placed Cetaphil first among valid recommendations.

The distinction to notice: Cetaphil lost presence and recommendation credit together, appearing in fewer AI answers overall while also winning fewer top placements in the answers where it did appear. The widening gap against EltaMD, from 48.8 points in July to 58.2 points in September, reflects Cetaphil's decline more than any EltaMD gain.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which question types and surfaces reduced Cetaphil's presence, and which brands captured the recommendations Cetaphil lost?

La Roche-Posay

La Roche-Posay's valid recommendation coverage declined 5.9 points from 89.6% in July to 83.7% in September, a significant decline within the tracked series. Despite the drop, the brand held the leadership position with 437 of 522 qualified observations carrying a valid recommendation.

Presence remained effectively flat at 95.6% raw mention presence versus 95.7% in July, and the brand's rank-one rate improved 0.8 points to 15.5%. The decline in coverage therefore came from answers where the brand was mentioned but not included in the valid recommendation shortlist, a pattern that echoes August's movement.

The distinction to notice: La Roche-Posay is as visible as ever in September, but a measurable share of recommendations now flows to other brands even in answers where the brand appears.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt families shifted from a La Roche-Posay recommendation to another brand, and which surface or answer format drove that movement?

Sun Bum

Sun Bum recovered ground this month after August's sharp drop, rising 2.9 points from 9.0% to 11.9% valid recommendation coverage. The movement was not significant, and the brand remains 3.0 points below its July level of 14.9%. Valid recommendation count improved from 50 to 62 observations.

Raw mention presence rose alongside coverage, from 13.5% to 16.7%, while top-three rate held at 2.1% and rank-one rate edged up 0.2 points to 0.6%. The negative sentiment count dropped to zero after holding at 1 in both prior months.

The distinction to notice: Sun Bum's recovery was broad-based rather than concentrated in stronger placements, with presence and coverage moving together after last month's synchronized decline.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which question types drove Sun Bum's presence recovery, and did those answers convert into recommendations or only mentions?

CeraVe

CeraVe declined 3.9 points from 70.4% valid recommendation coverage in July to 66.5% in September, though the movement was not significant. The brand holds third place, with a 11.8-point gap to EltaMD above it and a narrow 0.4-point edge over Neutrogena below it.

The supporting signals were mixed. Raw mention presence rose 0.8 points to 79.1%, but top-three rate fell 2.8 points to 25.9% and rank-one rate fell 1.0 point to 9.6%. August's intermediate month saw CeraVe peak at 71.3%, making September's level a step back from that high.

The distinction to notice: CeraVe's presence remains strong and stable, but its recommendation placements weakened in September, with the brand losing ground in the middle of the shortlist rather than disappearing from answers.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts shifted CeraVe out of top-three placement, and which evidence sources supported the brands that replaced it?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

All 522 qualified observations in September fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, as did all 557 in July. No qualified observations were recorded for pricing and value or multi-brand comparison questions in either month. The public benchmark therefore captures which brands AI recommends, but it cannot answer price sensitivity, value positioning, or head-to-head comparison questions for this category. Those commercial questions require dedicated prompt sets beyond the current discovery scope.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted across the category; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why these patterns emerged.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations covering the query, the AI surface, the recommendation outcome, the rank position, sentiment, and citations where exposed. Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns behind these percentages; the benchmark describes the output distribution, not its cause. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

Brands such as Kopari Beauty and Vichy operate on very few observations, so their percentage changes should be read with that limitation in mind. All percentages are calculated within the qualified observations per month: 557 for July and 522 for September, not the 800 raw prompt-surface collections. Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.

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

Next Step

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

Beneath the aggregate percentage sit the questions that matter: 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. The benchmark shows the scoreboard; it does not reveal the plays that produced it.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. That analysis turns the current standings in this report into a concrete action plan.

Request an AI visibility audit