How AI Search Is Recommending TRT Clinics: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Hone Health holds the coverage lead in October 2026 at 64.4% valid recommendation coverage, a 20.1-point advantage over second-place Maximus at 44.3%. Both brands posted significant gains against September 2026, when Hone Health stood at 42.7%, Defy Medical at 40.8%, and Maximus at 27.5%. Maximus moved past Defy Medical into second place this month, while Hone Health retained the lead.

Hone Health is also the strongest riser against the July baseline. Coverage moved from 53.1% in July 2026 to 64.4% in October 2026, up 11.3 points, and the brand's top-three rate rose from 36.4% to 53.1%, up 16.7 points, with rank-one placements up from 10.1% to 24.7%. Maximus is the second significant riser, up 15.6 points from 28.7% in July 2026 to 44.3% in October 2026, with its top-three rate up over the same span.

Henry Meds is the sharpest decliner against baseline, down 12.6 points from 23.9% in July 2026 to 11.3% in October 2026. Low T Center is the second significant decliner, down 5.1 points from 7.7% to 2.6%. Both declines are flagged as standing out from typical month-to-month movement, and both brands show a single-month recovery against September rather than a continuation of the fall.

Against the prior month, October is a month of consolidation rather than reversal. Hone Health rose 21.7 points from 42.7% in September 2026, and Maximus rose 16.8 points from 27.5%. Fountain TRT, Henry Meds, Low T Center, Marek Health, and Renew Vitality all moved up modestly against September, while Defy Medical held essentially flat and BioTE and Craft Concierge remained near zero. The category summary for October 2026 records two significant risers, two significant decliners, five stable brands, and one watch item.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. July 2026 produced 461 unique questions, August 2026 produced 532, September 2026 produced 535, and October 2026 produced 536. Brand or competitor mentions reached 800 in July, 799 in August, 800 in September, and 798 in October; relevant prompts were 419, 405, 428, and 379 respectively, and irrelevant prompts were 381, 394, 372, and 419. The public metrics use the 209 qualified observations in July 2026, the 209 in August 2026, the 218 in September 2026, and the 194 in October 2026 that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Which TRT clinic pricing claims did AI platforms return inconsistently, and where did the conflicts occur?
• How do the Hone Health membership and cost figures differ across ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, AI Overviews, and AI Mode?

Six critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies were detected across five AI platforms: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. Five involve Hone Health and one involves Defy Medical. Every flagged conflict concerns pricing, and each one turns on a different pair of platforms returning incompatible numbers for the same question.

Hone Health

AI platforms provided conflicting information about whether Hone Health offers a Plus membership tier. When asked "How much does Hone actually cost?", ChatGPT stated that only Basic ($25/month) and Premium ($155/month) plans exist and made no mention of a Plus plan, citing the Hone Health homepage and the company's Premium Membership Overview help page. AI Overviews stated that a Plus plan exists at $135/month, drawing on a Hims comparison page, a Sacra company profile, and a Hone Health cost article. A flagged source from the company's own help center lists ongoing monthly fees of $25, $135, and $155 across three tiers, which sits on the AI Overviews side of the conflict.

The monthly price of the Plus tier itself was returned inconsistently. When asked "How much does Hone TRT cost?", Copilot stated that Plus membership is $129/month, citing a Hone Health cost article, a TRT Atlas provider page, and a VirtualCareFinder review. AI Overviews stated that the Plus Plan is $135 per month, citing a Hims comparison page, the Hone Health membership comparison help article, and the same Hone Health cost article. A flagged source on the Copilot side lists Plus at $129/month while the help center source on the AI Overviews side lists $135/month.

A third pricing conflict concerns the underlying monthly membership level. When asked "How does Hone Health compare to other TRT clinics?", ChatGPT stated that the Hone Health Men's Plus plan is $135/month, citing the membership comparison help article alongside TRT Nation and Defy Medical FAQ pages. Copilot stated that Hone Health monthly cost is $149 to $289+, citing third-party clinic ranking pages. The Hone Health help center source cited by ChatGPT lists $135/month, while a MedSwitcher ranking page cited by Copilot lists $289/month and another lists $149 to $275+.

Annual all-in cost produced a fourth conflict. For the same comparison question, Gemini stated that Hone Health's true annual cost usually lands in the mid-tier range of $1,400 to $1,500 per year, citing a TRT Picks comparison, a ClinicLayer review, and a Hims comparison page. Copilot stated that Hone Health costs are among the highest at $1,900 to $2,300 annually all-in, citing MedSwitcher and Weight Loss Rankings comparison pages. The two ranges do not overlap. A flagged ClinicLayer excerpt supporting the Gemini figure notes that an advertised $25/month becomes $1,488 annually once required labs and diagnostics are included, while a MedSwitcher excerpt on the Copilot side describes Hone as the most expensive option at $289/month.

A fifth conflict concerns the monthly membership fee itself. When asked "Is Hone Health a reputable company?", AI Mode stated a $149 monthly subscription fee, citing the Hone Health homepage, a Designing Longevity review, and a Hims comparison page. Copilot stated that advertised entry fees such as $25/month are membership costs only, citing a GLP-1 review site, Trustpilot, and an HRT Picks review. A flagged Hone Health page on the Copilot side shows a $25/month Basic membership alongside a $155/month Premium membership, while Designing Longevity on the AI Mode side lists $129/month Plus and $149/month Premium.

Defy Medical

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Defy Medical's monthly cost. When asked "How does Hone Health compare to other TRT clinics?", ChatGPT stated that a typical male TRT patient at Defy Medical averages under $175/month in the first year, dropping to roughly $125/month thereafter, citing the Defy Medical cost FAQ alongside Hone Health and TRT Nation pages. Copilot stated that Defy Medical monthly cost is $200 to $350, citing third-party clinic ranking pages. The two ranges do not overlap. A flagged excerpt from the Defy Medical FAQ supports the ChatGPT figure, while a Best Meds Hub excerpt on the Copilot side lists $149 initial consult and $200 to $350 per month for physician-led TRT.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How many prompt observations qualified for the October 2026 benchmark, and how does that compare with the raw collection universe?
• What changed in the recommendation-shaped and shortlist share between July and 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.

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 months carry the shape of this series. The recommendation-shaped answer share dipped to 49.8% in August 2026 and fell back to 39.9% in September 2026 before climbing to 53.6% in October 2026, its highest reading of the four months. The valid recommendation shortlist share fell from 64.6% in July 2026 to 63.6% in August 2026 and 55.5% in September 2026, then rose to 78.4% in October 2026, also the highest of the series.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which TRT clinics lead on valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, and how wide is the gap at the top?
• Which brands rose or fell significantly against the July 2026 baseline, and which moves stayed within normal variation?

Hone Health has extended its lead to more than twenty points, with the top of the category now clearly separated from the rest of the field

Hone Health leads at 64.4% valid recommendation coverage, 20.1 points ahead of Maximus at 44.3% in October 2026. Defy Medical sits third at 40.7%, Marek Health fourth at 20.1%, and Fountain TRT fifth at 14.4%.

Two brands exceeded normal month-to-month variation against the July baseline: Hone Health and Maximus on the upside, Henry Meds and Low T Center on the downside. The remaining six brands moved within expected bounds, so the category-level shift reflects a combination of a widened top and a receded lower tier rather than a single dominant move.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• What drove Hone Health's twenty-one point gain in October 2026, and in which placements did it concentrate?
• How did Maximus convert its presence into top-three placements compared with its baseline?
• Why did Henry Meds and Defy Medical show different patterns of presence versus recommendation quality?

Hone Health: a twenty-one point month on top of an already leading position

Hone Health moved from 42.7% coverage in September 2026 to 64.4% in October 2026, up 21.7 points, the sharpest single-month move recorded by any brand in this series. Against the July 2026 baseline the brand is up 11.3 points from 53.1%, a rise large enough to stand out from normal variation.

Valid recommendations rose from 93 in September 2026 to 125 in October 2026. Top-three placements increased from 74 to 103, and rank-one placements rose from 18 to 48. Raw mention presence moved from 77.1% to 80.4% of qualified answers.

The brand is now both the most mentioned and the most recommended option in the category, and it holds the widest lead at the top of the field this month. Its presence rate rose modestly while its recommendation rate rose sharply, which is the reverse of the pattern the series recorded two months ago.

Counts at this level are large enough that a 21.7-point move is not a small-sample artifact; it reflects 32 additional valid recommendations across the qualified set.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces and prompt types drove the October expansion, and whether the gain is concentrated in a subset of prompts rather than spread across the set.

Maximus: the second significant riser, and the larger top-three gain

Maximus moved from 27.5% coverage in September 2026 to 44.3% in October 2026, up 16.8 points, and sits 15.6 points above its July 2026 baseline of 28.7%. The baseline move is large enough to stand out from normal variation.

Valid recommendations rose from 60 in September 2026 to 86 in October 2026. Top-three placements increased from 45 to 76, and rank-one placements from 21 to 30. Raw mention presence moved from 36.7% to 46.4%.

The brand's top-three rate is up 24.8 points against July 2026, from 14.3% to 39.2%, which is a larger gain than its coverage rise. That means Maximus is converting a greater share of its presence into high placements rather than simply appearing more often, and it is the only brand besides Hone Health in that position this month.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which of the two large surfaces accounts for the top-three gain, and whether the improvement holds across both.

Henry Meds: the sharpest baseline decline, with a single-month recovery

Henry Meds is down 12.6 points against the July 2026 baseline, from 23.9% coverage to 11.3% in October 2026, a decline large enough to stand out from normal variation. Within that series, the brand fell from 23.9% in July 2026 to 13.9% in August 2026 and 9.6% in September 2026 before recovering to 11.3% in October 2026, up 1.7 points against the prior month.

Valid recommendations moved from 21 in September 2026 to 22 in October 2026. Top-three placements rose from 12 to 14, and rank-one placements held at 1. Raw mention presence fell from 20.6% to 13.9%.

The distinction here is between presence and recommendation. Henry Meds appeared in fewer October answers than September answers, yet converted a marginally higher number of valid recommendations. Its baseline decline remains the sharpest in the category even as the most recent month moved the other way.

Counts are small enough that two additional valid recommendations shift the percentage by more than a point, so the October uptick should be read with that base in mind.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the October presence decline reflects a narrower question set or a real reduction in which prompts surface the brand.

Low T Center: a significant baseline decline with a modest October uptick

Low T Center is down 5.1 points against the July 2026 baseline, from 7.7% coverage to 2.6% in October 2026. The baseline move stands out from normal variation, and the brand's rank-one rate fell 2.9 points over the same span, from 3.4% to 0.5%.

Within the series the brand fell from 7.7% in July 2026 to 2.4% in August 2026 and 1.4% in September 2026 before rising to 2.6% in October 2026, up 1.2 points against the prior month. Raw mention presence moved from 6.9% in September 2026 to 4.6% in October 2026.

Valid recommendations moved from 3 in September 2026 to 5 in October 2026. With 5 valid recommendations across 194 qualified observations, a change of one or two answers materially moves the percentage, and the brand's monthly readings in this series have ranged from 1.4% to 7.7%.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts produced the two additional valid recommendations in October, and whether those prompts recur.

Defy Medical: three consecutive monthly declines, cumulative move still within normal variation

Defy Medical moved from 48.8% coverage in July 2026 to 40.7% in October 2026, down 8.1 points, with the decline running across three consecutive monthly readings. The cumulative move sits just inside the threshold for a significant change, and the category summary records the brand as a watch item on that basis.

The October reading is essentially flat against September 2026, when the brand stood at 40.8%. Valid recommendations held at 79, top-three placements rose from 43 to 54, and rank-one placements increased from 8 to 12. Raw mention presence fell from 47.7% to 44.9%.

The distinction to notice is that Defy Medical is losing presence while holding or improving its placement quality. Its top-three rate is up 3.9 points against July 2026 and its rank-one rate is up 1.9 points, so the brand is appearing in fewer answers but ranking higher when it does appear.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the presence loss is concentrated in a surface where the brand previously ranked well.

The widened gap between Henry Meds and Maximus

The benchmark records the gap between Henry Meds and Maximus widening in each of the four months measured, from 4.8 points in July 2026 to 33.0 points in October 2026. The benchmark also records the Defy Medical and Maximus gap shifting from a 20.1-point Defy Medical lead in July 2026 to a 3.6-point Maximus lead in October 2026, widening in each month of the series.

These are category-level observations about repositioning within the recommendation set, not a statement about any one brand's standing. Two brands that held adjacent positions in July now sit more than thirty points apart, while a third has moved past a brand it trailed by twenty points.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the repositioning traces to a shared set of prompts or to the surfaces where each brand ranks.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters did the October 2026 qualified observations cover, and what does that limit in the benchmark's conclusions?
• What can the public benchmark say about cost and head-to-head comparison prompts, given the surface coverage?

All 194 qualified observations in October 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. The six pricing inconsistencies reported above sit outside the qualified recommendation set and come from a separate check of factual agreement across platforms, so they indicate that cost information varies by surface without speaking to how cost shapes which clinics get recommended.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which TRT clinics have a coverage gap or diagnostic question that warrants company-level analysis in October 2026?
• Which brands show a signal that converts into recommendations, and which show presence without conversion?

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 Visibility Market Discovery research program.

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

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: BioTE, Craft Concierge, Low T Center, and Renew Vitality operate on 6 or fewer valid recommendations in October 2026; a change of one or two 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 in July 2026, the 209 in August 2026, the 218 in September 2026, and the 194 in October 2026, not the 800 prompt-surface observations collected each month, 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