How AI Search Is Recommending Sustainable Pet Food and Alternative Protein: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Open Farm remains the category leader in October 2026 with 71.0% valid recommendation coverage, up 5.2 points from 65.8% in August 2026, and the gap to second-place Freshpet now sits at 41.2 points. The leadership picture is unchanged across the full three-month series: Open Farm has held first place in every month measured, and the benchmark records it as stable on the primary coverage metric. The upper tier is pulling away from the field.

Freshpet produced the sharpest upward move in October, reaching 29.8% coverage from 24.5% in September 2026, a 5.3-point gain that followed a 1.9-point decline the prior month. Against the August baseline, Freshpet is up 3.4 points. Its top-three recommendation rate moved from 11.5% in August to 17.6% in October, a 6.1-point increase, and its rank-one rate rose from 2.9% to 4.6%. Coverage and placement improved together, the clearest such case this month.

PawCo Foods is the only brand the benchmark classifies as a significant decliner across the current three-month series. Its coverage fell 2.6 points from 4.9% in August to 2.3% in October, with a two-month downward streak. The decline appears in both presence and placement: raw mention presence moved from 5.4% to 2.3%, and top-three recommendation rate fell from 2.4% to 0.0%. The brand no longer places in the top three when it appears.

Against the prior month, the category was stable: no brand recorded a significant month-over-month movement on the primary coverage metric, and the benchmark recorded no significant risers. Across the full three-month series, PawCo Foods is the one brand classified as a significant decliner, reflecting its drop from the August baseline rather than a single-month swing. The remaining movement came from a combination of smaller shifts, with Open Farm, Freshpet, Earth Animal, Petaluma, V-Dog, Wild Earth, Jiminy's, Yora, and Noochies! all classified as stable. Only one brand moved beyond the normal range of variation.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. In August 2026, those 800 observations covered 580 unique questions; 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor, 600 were relevant and 200 were irrelevant. In October 2026, the same 800 prompt-surface observations covered 522 unique questions; 796 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor, 607 were relevant and 189 were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 409 qualified observations (August) and 393 qualified observations (October) that survive both qualification stages, spanning all six AI surface families: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. September 2026, the intermediate month, drew on 421 qualified observations.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• How many factual conflicts did the benchmark detect across AI platforms this month?
• Which brands were involved in the conflicting ownership, pricing, and nutritional claims?
• What conflicting claims did AI platforms make about Open Farm's ownership and Tractor Supply pricing?

The benchmark detected nine critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies across six AI platforms: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. The conflicts span three tracked companies and involve conflicting claims about company ownership, product pricing, nutritional compliance, and product composition. The answers shaping buyer perception are not consistent across surfaces.

Open Farm

Seven of the nine inconsistencies involved Open Farm, spanning ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Perplexity. When asked "Who owns Open Farm pet food?", ChatGPT stated that General Atlantic made a majority investment and is the controlling owner, citing PetfoodIndustry, Cascadia Capital, and the company's LinkedIn page. Perplexity answered the same question by describing General Atlantic as a minority partner, citing PetfoodProcessing, Bloomberg, and PetfoodIndustry. The benchmark flagged two sources on the minority-partner side of that conflict: a Newswire release titled "Open Farm Receives $80MM+ Minority Growth Investment Led By General Atlantic" and a PetfoodProcessing article establishing General Atlantic as a minority partner alongside Encore Consumer Capital.

A second ownership conflict saw ChatGPT's majority-investment claim set against Gemini's statement that "Open Farm remains privately owned and operated by its founders, with General Atlantic providing a growth investment," citing Export Development Canada and McCarthy Tétrault. A third saw the same ChatGPT claim set against Copilot's description of Open Farm as "founder-led and investor-backed, with General Atlantic as a major stakeholder (not controlling)," citing the Toronto Guardian, a pet food ownership page, and a Newswire release on the co-founders' EY Entrepreneur of the Year recognition. The category leader's ownership is being described three different ways across surfaces.

Four pricing conflicts centred on the question "Do they sell Open Farm at Tractor Supply?" For Open Farm Wild-Caught Salmon Ancient Grains Dry Dog Food, ChatGPT stated $29.99 while Copilot stated $84.99, both citing Tractor Supply product and brand pages. For Open Farm Homestead Turkey & Chicken Grain-Free Dry Dog Food, ChatGPT stated $28.99, Copilot stated $89.99, and Gemini stated $93.99, producing three separate high-confidence conflicts on the same product across the three platforms, all citing Tractor Supply listings.

Freshpet

One inconsistency involved Freshpet, spanning Copilot and AI Mode. When asked "Do vets approve of Freshpet dog food?", AI Mode stated that Freshpet falls short of WSAVA guidelines, citing the absence of full-time board-certified veterinary nutritionists on staff and no extensive peer-reviewed feeding trials, drawing on Google shopping results and a Freshpet YouTube video. Copilot stated that Freshpet meets AAFCO and WSAVA guidelines, citing reviews from PawsNutritions, PetPidia, and ThePetsBest. The same brand is being described as both compliant and non-compliant on the same standard.

Petaluma

One inconsistency involved Petaluma, spanning AI Mode and AI Overviews. When asked "What is the healthiest vegan dog food?", AI Mode stated that Petaluma has high protein content around 31% to 33%, citing Google shopping results that surfaced Natural Balance and Open Farm products. AI Overviews stated that Petaluma features 27% protein, citing a Petaluma ranked guide, The Dodo, and a YouTube video. The benchmark flagged the Petaluma ranked guide as a source for the 27% claim.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How do the raw collection volume and the qualified benchmark set differ this month?
• What share of responses took a recommendation-shaped form in 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, which in October 2026 was 393 observations from a collection of 800 prompt-surface runs.

Qualified surface breadth held at 6 AI surface families in both months, meaning the qualification funnel reduced the observation count without narrowing the range of surfaces measured. September 2026, the intermediate month, carried 421 qualified observations and the same breadth of 6.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The share of responses taking a recommendation-shaped form rose from 48.4% in August to 69.0% in October, a substantial shift in how AI systems answered category questions. The intermediate month sat between the two at 52.7%. The valid shortlist share also rose, from 77.0% to 89.1%, meaning a larger proportion of qualified observations produced a usable recommendation set in October. AI systems are answering category questions in recommendation form far more often, but from a smaller qualified base.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brand leads the category, and how wide is the gap to second place?
• How much did Freshpet and PawCo Foods move across the three-month series?

Open Farm Holds a Wide Lead as the Category's Upper Tier Widens Away From the Field

One brand, PawCo Foods, moved beyond the normal range of variation on the primary coverage metric across the three-month series, registering as a significant decliner. Every other brand's month-to-month shift fell within the benchmark's normal variation band. The category-level change came from a single identifiable baseline-level movement plus smaller upward drifts across the field.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Why did Open Farm's coverage gain outpace its rank-one placement?
• What drove Freshpet's largest single-month coverage gain and top-three improvement?
• Which prompts stopped including PawCo Foods, and where did its top-three placements go?

Open Farm: Leadership Extends on Coverage While Rank-One Placement Holds Flat

Open Farm's valid recommendation coverage rose from 65.8% in August 2026 to 71.0% in October 2026, a 5.2-point gain. Prior to current, the intermediate reading was 66.8% in September, a 4.2-point step up from that month. Raw mention presence moved from 75.3% in August to 77.1% in October, meaning the brand appeared in some form in more than three-quarters of qualified observations.

Placement metrics moved more slowly than coverage. The rank-one recommendation rate moved from 14.9% in August to 15.3% in October, a 0.4-point change, while the top-three rate rose from 29.8% to 36.6%, a 6.8-point increase. Valid recommendation count rose from 269 in August to 279 in October.

The distinction to notice is that Open Farm's coverage gain outpaced its rank-one gain. The brand is being recommended in more qualified observations without a proportional increase in first-position placements, and the benchmark cannot establish from the aggregate data why that pattern holds.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types or surfaces account for the additional valid recommendations, and are those placements concentrated below the top spot?

Freshpet: Sharpest Single-Month Gain, With Top-Three Placement Also Improving

Freshpet's valid recommendation coverage moved from 24.5% in September 2026 to 29.8% in October 2026, a 5.3-point gain and the largest single-month increase recorded in the October series. Against the August baseline of 26.4%, the brand is up 3.4 points. The September drop to 24.5% and the October recovery to 29.8% mean the two months together produced a net gain over baseline.

Placement improved alongside coverage. The top-three recommendation rate moved from 11.5% in August to 17.6% in October, a 6.1-point increase, and the rank-one count rose from 12 to 18. Valid recommendation count increased from 108 in August to 117 in October, while raw presence moved from 36.7% to 38.2%.

Freshpet is the clearest case in this month's data of coverage and placement moving together. The brand widened its position as the clear second-place player while also improving the quality of its placements within recommendation sets.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which question contexts or AI surfaces produced the additional valid recommendations, and did the top-three gains arrive on the same surfaces as the coverage gains?

PawCo Foods: The Series' Only Significant Decliner, Now Two Months Down

PawCo Foods' valid recommendation coverage fell from 4.9% in August 2026 to 2.3% in October 2026, a 2.6-point decline the benchmark classifies as significant, and the brand has now declined for two consecutive months. The intermediate reading was 4.3% in September. Prior to current, that September to October step was a 2.0-point decline.

The decline registered in both presence and placement. Raw mention presence moved from 5.4% in August to 2.3% in October, a 3.1-point drop. The top-three recommendation rate fell from 2.4% to 0.0%, a 2.4-point decline; the brand held no top-three placements in October. Valid recommendation count moved from 20 in August to 9 in October, with 0 rank-one placements.

The distinction to notice is that PawCo Foods' absolute recommendation counts are small, so percentage movement should be read with caution. The brand is appearing in fewer qualified observations and is no longer placing in the top three when it does appear.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts stopped including the brand, and which competitor now appears in recommendation sets where PawCo Foods previously placed in the top three?

Petaluma and Earth Animal: Mid-Tier Drift Continues on Two-Month Uptrends

Petaluma's coverage moved from 4.9% in August 2026 to 7.1% in October 2026, a 2.2-point gain, with a two-month upward streak and an intermediate reading of 5.5% in September. Its rank-one rate rose from 0.5% to 2.3%, a 1.8-point change, and valid recommendation count increased from 20 to 28.

Earth Animal's coverage moved from 2.0% in August to 3.6% in October, a 1.6-point gain, also on a two-month upward streak. Its top-three rate rose from 1.5% to 2.3% and its rank-one rate from 0.5% to 1.0%, with valid recommendation count rising from 8 to 14.

Both brands sit at low absolute coverage, so their point gains rest on small underlying counts. The benchmark records the direction as upward but does not classify either movement as significant.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Are the gains for both brands concentrated in the same AI surfaces, or are they arriving through different recommendation pathways?

V-Dog and Wild Earth: Third and Fourth Place Hold Steady

V-Dog's coverage moved from 11.0% in August 2026 to 13.2% in October 2026, a 2.2-point gain on a two-month upward streak, though its rank-one rate eased from 4.9% to 3.8%. Wild Earth's coverage moved from 12.0% to 12.5%, a 0.5-point gain, with valid recommendation count holding at 49.

The gap between the two brands is 0.7 points, keeping the third and fourth positions closely contested. Both brands sit well behind the upper tier and well ahead of the remaining field, so this is the category's most contested boundary.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces separate V-Dog's placement profile from Wild Earth's, given the narrow coverage gap between them?

Jiminy's, Yora, and Noochies!: The Lower Tier

Jiminy's coverage moved from 1.2% in August 2026 to 1.3% in October, a 0.1-point change, with valid recommendation count at 5. Yora moved from 0.2% to 0.5%, a 0.3-point change on two valid recommendations. Noochies! held at 0.0% for the third consecutive month, with no presence in the qualified observation set.

All three brands operate on very small absolute counts, and Noochies! recorded no measurable presence at all. The benchmark cannot describe a positioning pattern for a brand that does not appear in the qualified set.

Highest-priority diagnostic: For Noochies!, which category prompts surface any competing alternative-protein brand at all, and what evidence would be needed to appear in one of them?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters did the qualified observation set capture in October 2026?
• What commercial question types can the public benchmark not yet address?

In October 2026, all 393 qualified observations fell into the brand recommendation cluster. The benchmark did not capture any qualified observations asking for pricing analysis, value comparison, or multi-brand head-to-head evaluation, even though the raw response-type distribution included 3 pricing analysis responses and 10 comparison analysis responses.

The public benchmark can describe which brand AI systems recommend in general terms, but it cannot yet speak to price positioning, value perception, or comparative win rates between named brands, because the qualified observation set did not contain those commercial question types. September 2026 showed the same pattern.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brand has the highest recommendation coverage, and what diagnostic does the benchmark flag for it?
• What diagnostic does the benchmark flag for PawCo Foods after its significant decline?

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why those patterns exist.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

Questions This Section Answers

• What does each prompt-level observation record, and what can a company-level analysis add?

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations that capture the query, the AI surface that answered, whether a brand was recommended, the rank of that recommendation, the sentiment expressed, and any citations the system exposed. Company-level analysis can go deeper into the specific prompts where a brand wins or loses, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand is absent, and which external sources are shaping the AI system's answer. Source presence in an AI response is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery research program. List these canonical CiteWorks Studio research links:

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

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Brand-level percentages in this report are calculated against the qualified benchmark set of 393 observations in October 2026, not the raw collection universe of 800 prompts. Small observation counts at the individual brand level, for example 2 valid recommendations for Yora, mean percentage movement for those brands should be interpreted with caution.
• The qualified denominator moved from 409 observations in August 2026 to 393 in October 2026, while qualified surface breadth held at 6. The change in denominator affects the absolute counts behind each percentage, so a stable rate does not imply a stable count.
• PawCo Foods' classification as a significant decliner identifies a change worth investigating. Month-over-month movement does not by itself establish the cause of that change.
• The benchmark has used six AI surface families throughout this series, and qualified surface breadth held at 6 in every month measured.

Next Step

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

Beneath the aggregate coverage percentage sit the questions that matter commercially: which high-intent prompts is a brand winning, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources are shaping those answers. The benchmark recorded nine critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies this month across six AI platforms, including conflicting ownership claims about the category leader and multiple conflicting prices for the same products, which means the answers shaping buyer perception are not fully consistent across surfaces.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It investigates why coverage and placement moved the way they did and what can be done about it, turning the benchmark signal into an action plan.

Request an AI visibility audit