How AI Search Is Recommending TRT Clinics: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Defy Medical and Hone Health now share the lead for AI recommendation coverage among TRT clinics, each appearing in 47.4% of qualified answers in August 2026. The gap between the co-leaders is zero; behind them, Maximus holds the clear third position at 28.2%, a 19.2-point gap to the pair ahead.

Two brands recorded declines large enough to be considered significant this month, making August the first month of notable movement in this category. Henry Meds fell 10.0 points from 23.9% in July to 13.9% in August, while Low T Center dropped 5.3 points from 7.7% to 2.4%. No brand recorded a significant rise, and the overall leader position was stable.

The movement in August was concentrated at the middle and lower end of the field. Marek Health edged up 0.9 points to 21.5%, and Renew Vitality gained 0.5 points to 2.4%, but neither move was large enough to be flagged as significant. The category's center of gravity shifted modestly downward as recommendation coverage narrowed toward the leading tier.

Across the full July-to-August series, the top of the market tightened rather than separating. Hone Health entered August as the sole leader at 53.1% and ended it in an effective tie with Defy Medical, whose coverage held steadier through the month. The commercial consequence is a more contested leadership tier and a middle of the market that lost ground.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (461 unique questions in July, 532 in August) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 800 in July and 799 in August mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 419 in July and 405 in August were relevant, and 381 in July and 394 in August were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 209 observations in each month 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

These benchmark-wide figures track how many observations qualified for analysis and how the mix of recommendation-shaped answers shifted between the two months.

The intermediate observation that matters most: July's leader, Hone Health, held the top spot alone at the start of the series, while August's result is a two-way tie at the top. The rise in recommendation-shaped answer share from 39.7% to 49.8% signals that AI systems are now structuring more TRT clinic answers as direct recommendations, even as the share of answers with a valid shortlist slipped slightly.

AI Recommendation Trend

The leadership tier compressed into a tie while the middle of the market lost ground

Defy Medical and Hone Health now co-lead the category, each holding valid recommendation coverage of 47.4% in August 2026. The pair sit well clear of Maximus in third at 28.2%, with Marek Health in fourth at 21.5%.

The category change in August came from a combination of several downward moves rather than a single dominant shift. Two of those moves, Henry Meds and Low T Center, exceeded normal month-to-month variation, while the declines at Hone Health, Defy Medical, and Fountain TRT remained within expected bounds.

What Changed This Month

Defy Medical and Hone Health: the leadership tie

Hone Health entered August as the sole category leader at 53.1% coverage and ended it at 47.4%, a 5.7-point decline that did not reach the significance level applied elsewhere in this report. Defy Medical moved from 48.8% to 47.4%, a 1.4-point dip, leaving the two brands level at the top.

Hone Health's raw mention presence held nearly steady at 70.3% in August versus 71.3% in July, meaning the brand is still surfacing in answers at roughly the same rate. The loss came in conversion from presence to recommendation: its top-three rate slipped from 36.4% to 33.0%, while its rank-one rate actually improved from 10.1% to 12.9%.

Defy Medical moved in the opposite shape. Its mention presence rose from 53.6% to 55.5%, and its top-three rate improved from 23.9% to 26.8%, yet its overall coverage dipped slightly because its valid recommendation count fell from 102 to 99.

The distinction to notice: Hone Health is gaining top-of-list placement (27 rank-one recommendations in August versus 21 in July) while losing overall breadth, whereas Defy Medical has steadier presence with strong top-three support. Both now carry 99 valid recommendations each.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts is each brand winning at rank one in August, and which answer format (shortlist versus ranked list) is driving the difference in conversion from presence to recommendation.

Henry Meds: significant decline

Henry Meds posted the largest movement in the category, falling 10.0 points from 23.9% coverage in July to 13.9% in August, a drop large enough to register as a significant decline for the brand. The brand's valid recommendation count fell from 50 to 29.

Presence also contracted. Henry Meds appeared in 26.8% of July answers and 22.0% in August, a 4.8-point decline that stayed inside normal variation. More telling was the conversion loss: its top-three rate dropped from 11.5% to 6.2%, suggesting the brand is not only appearing less but recommending less prominently when it does appear.

Rank-one placements held nearly flat at roughly 1.0% in July and 0.5% in August, with 2 and 1 top recommendations respectively. The shortfall was concentrated in the middle of recommendation lists rather than at the top.

The distinction to notice: Henry Meds declined across both presence and coverage, but the sharper contraction in top-three recommendations indicates a change in the answer format the brand receives, not simply fewer mentions.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt clusters drove the 21-recommendation loss, and which competitor is capturing the recommendation when Henry Meds drops out of the shortlist.

Low T Center: significant decline

Low T Center fell 5.3 points from 7.7% coverage in July to 2.4% in August, a decline large enough to register as significant for the brand. Its valid recommendation count dropped from 16 to 5.

The decline was visible across every placement tier. Raw mention presence fell from 17.7% to 10.5%, top-three rate from 4.3% to 0.5%, and rank-one rate from 3.4% to 0.0%. August recorded zero rank-one recommendations for Low T Center, down from 7 in July.

The small counts here deserve attention. A shift of 5 valid recommendations at this level is the entire story, and the brand's total presence fell from 37 mentions in July to 22 in August.

The distinction to notice: Low T Center is in a different position from Henry Meds. Its decline combines a real loss in presence with a sharp drop in recommendation quality, leaving it with just 5 valid recommendations across all 209 qualified answers.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the loss of rank-one placements reflects a specific prompt cluster where Low T Center previously led, and which evidence sources stopped supporting it.

Fountain TRT and the stable middle

Fountain TRT declined 2.4 points from 11.0% to 8.6% coverage, staying within normal variation but extending a downward shape for the brand. Its valid recommendations fell from 23 to 18, and its rank-one placements went from 1 in July to 0 in August.

Marek Health was the only tracked brand to gain meaningful ground, rising 0.9 points from 20.6% to 21.5%, with valid recommendations up from 43 to 45. Renew Vitality added 0.5 points to reach 2.4%, though its top-three rate fell to 0.0% in August.

The category's middle tier is compressing toward the leaders. Defy Medical, Hone Health, Maximus, and Marek Health now hold the top four positions with a clear gap to the rest of the field, while Henry Meds dropped from the upper tier into the middle.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether Fountain TRT's gradual slide and Henry Meds' sharp drop share a common prompt pattern, and whether Marek Health's steady rise is converting presence into top-three placements.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

All 209 qualified observations in August 2026 fell into the discovery and consideration stage, where buyers are identifying and evaluating TRT clinic options. The benchmark's public metrics therefore speak to which brands surface and get recommended during initial research, not to how clinics fare when buyers explicitly compare options or weigh pricing.

Because no qualified observations landed in the pricing, value, or head-to-head comparison clusters, the public benchmark cannot yet answer questions about price sensitivity, cost-driven recommendation patterns, or direct competitive matchups. Those dynamics would require a deeper, prompt-level inspection of individual answers where pricing and comparison language appears.

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 covering the query, the AI surface, the recommendation outcome, the 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

• Small-count movement: Low T Center and Renew Vitality operate on 5 or fewer valid recommendations; a change of a handful of answers moves their percentages materially, so their month-to-month shifts should be read with that base in mind.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: the public percentages use the 209 qualified observations per month, not the 800 prompt-surface observations collected, and the funnel between them is disclosed in the Benchmark Context table.
• Directional analysis: month-over-month movement 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.

Beneath the aggregate percentages sit the questions that determine whether a movement is a trend or a one-off: which high-intent prompts a brand wins, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each clinic, and which external sources shape those answers. The benchmark flags the movement, but it cannot explain the mechanism from the summary metrics alone.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It isolates the specific queries where a brand's position is eroding, identifies the competitor capturing those recommendations, and pinpoints the evidence gaps that need attention.

Request an AI visibility audit