Online Doctors in AI Search: The Biggest AI Visibility Problems and How We'd Fix Them

Companies covered: Amwell, MDLive, Sesame, K Health, HealthTap, plushcare, Teladoc Health, Lemonaid Health, Doctor on Demand, LiveHealth Online

Answer Capsule

The November 2026 Online Doctors benchmark compares 10 companies across 399 AI answers that met its inclusion rules. Teladoc Health recorded 346 mentions and 246 recommendations (61.65% of the answers). Being mentioned means appearing in an answer; being recommended means receiving an affirmative endorsement.

We examine each company, compare the available monthly results, and set out a five-step plan for improving the information AI systems can draw on. The work starts with measuring visibility and checking conflicting claims, then moves to company pages, relevant publishers and buyer questions. The cited pages need review before any correction request, and the research does not establish what caused recommendation differences or promise future gains.

Executive industry diagnosis

Questions This Section Answers

• What does the Online Doctors benchmark show about mentions, recommendations and placement?

The peer set splits into a clear leading group and a long tail. Teladoc Health, Sesame, Doctor on Demand, MDLive, plushcare and Amwell all appear in a large share of answers and are frequently recommended, while K Health, LiveHealth Online, HealthTap and Lemonaid Health appear far less often. The gap is about presence, not just ranking.

Recommendation reach is broad across the leading group, but first-place placement is concentrated. Teladoc Health holds most first-place positions, with Sesame and Doctor on Demand well behind and the rest holding few. Being named often and being named first are different outcomes, and the second is much harder to shift.

For the agency, the practical split is between defending presence for the leaders and building it for the tail. The tail companies have little room to lose and a plausible path to more mentions, while the leaders risk erosion if their facts drift. Both need the same starting discipline: a documented baseline before any work begins.

What changed since last month

Questions This Section Answers

• What changed across the usable monthly Online Doctors snapshots?

Only months with verified results are shown. Monthly sample coverage is listed in Methodology.

The two months are separate samples, so the movement should be read as recorded change rather than like-for-like performance. Several companies show large swings in both mentions and recommendations, and the answer totals differ between months. That limits how much can be attributed to any single cause.

What stands out is the divergence in direction. Some companies moved up on both measures while others moved down, and a few moved in opposite directions. Those patterns are worth watching across future months before treating them as trends. The agency should record each month's coverage alongside its results so later comparisons stay honest.

Company-by-company findings

Amwell

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Amwell have in Online Doctors?

Amwell recorded 226 mentions (56.64%) and 146 recommendations (36.59%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 84; first-place recommendations numbered 3. Framing among its mentions was 152 positive, 74 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Amwell's mention count rose from 215 to 226, while its recommendation count rose from 134 to 146. The recommendation rate was 23.72% and 36.59% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Amwell: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://business.amwell.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://patients.amwell.com/.

Amwell is mentioned often and recommended at a solid rate, but it rarely lands in first place. That pattern suggests the answers treat it as a credible option rather than the default choice. The gap between reach and top position is the interesting part, not the raw totals.

The agency would propose a conditional review of the selected owned and third-party pages, checking current facts before any edit. A short page brief and a buyer-question content piece could test whether clearer positioning changes how often Amwell is named first.

MDLive

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does MDLive have in Online Doctors?

MDLive recorded 238 mentions (59.65%) and 182 recommendations (45.61%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 92; first-place recommendations numbered 7. Framing among its mentions was 183 positive, 55 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, MDLive's mention count fell from 242 to 238, while its recommendation count rose from 172 to 182. The recommendation rate was 30.44% and 45.61% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about MDLive: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://mdlive.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://customers.twilio.com/en-us/mdlive.

MDLive combines strong mention and recommendation rates with very few first-place positions. It is consistently present in answers and usually endorsed, yet rarely the leading name. That is a positioning question rather than a visibility one.

The agency would propose a fact-check of the selected pages and a page brief focused on what makes MDLive the first choice for a specific need. Any change would follow verification of current primary sources, and results would be tracked separately from the work itself.

Sesame

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Sesame have in Online Doctors?

Sesame recorded 241 mentions (60.40%) and 198 recommendations (49.62%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 115; first-place recommendations numbered 46. Framing among its mentions was 202 positive, 39 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Sesame's mention count fell from 339 to 241, while its recommendation count fell from 280 to 198. The recommendation rate was 49.56% and 49.62% respectively.

AI answers contained 11 conflicting claims about Sesame: 0 critical, 0 high, 7 medium, 4 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://sesamecare.com/complaint/online-urgent-care.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://health.amazon.com/onemedical.

Sesame has strong reach and a high recommendation rate, with a meaningful share of first-place positions. It sits close to the top of the peer set on presence. The recorded price conflicts are the main open item, and they concern how the answers describe visit costs.

Because those conflicts are unresolved, the agency would propose a fact-check against current primary sources before any correction. A page brief for the selected owned page and a buyer-question piece on pricing could follow once the facts are confirmed.

K Health

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does K Health have in Online Doctors?

K Health recorded 46 mentions (11.53%) and 31 recommendations (7.77%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 10; first-place recommendations numbered 1. Framing among its mentions was 31 positive, 15 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, K Health's mention count rose from 42 to 46, while its recommendation count rose from 30 to 31. The recommendation rate was 5.31% and 7.77% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about K Health: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://khealth.com/learn/urinary-tract-infection/can-you-get-uti-antibiotics-online/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://goodrx.com/healthcare-access/telehealth/popular-telehealth-apps.

K Health appears in a modest share of answers and is recommended less often still, with almost no first-place positions. It is visible but not yet a name the answers reach for. The observed questions about telehealth apps are a useful starting point for content work.

The agency would propose a page brief for the selected owned page and a buyer-question piece aimed at app-comparison questions. Any edits would wait on verification of current facts, and the work would be tracked separately from answer outcomes.

HealthTap

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does HealthTap have in Online Doctors?

HealthTap recorded 24 mentions (6.02%) and 12 recommendations (3.01%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 6; first-place recommendations numbered 3. Framing among its mentions was 12 positive, 12 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, HealthTap's mention count rose from 19 to 24, while its recommendation count fell from 14 to 12. The recommendation rate was 2.48% and 3.01% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about HealthTap: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://healthtap.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://teladochealth.com/.

HealthTap has low visibility and a small recommendation count, with a handful of first-place positions. Its mentions are evenly split between positive and neutral wording, which suggests the answers describe it without strong endorsement. That is a framing issue worth examining.

The agency would propose a review of the selected owned page and a page brief clarifying what HealthTap offers and to whom. Verification of current facts would come first, and the third-party candidate would be checked before any request is made.

plushcare

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does plushcare have in Online Doctors?

plushcare recorded 175 mentions (43.86%) and 148 recommendations (37.09%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 66; first-place recommendations numbered 10. Framing among its mentions was 150 positive, 25 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, plushcare's mention count fell from 283 to 175, while its recommendation count fell from 235 to 148. The recommendation rate was 41.59% and 37.09% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about plushcare: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://plushcare.com/blog/doctors-note.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://facebook.com/Plushcare/videos/upgrade-your-virtual-healthcare/687511567351229/.

plushcare holds a solid mention rate and a strong recommendation rate, with a modest number of first-place positions. It is a regular presence in answers and usually endorsed. The recorded movement between months is large, but the samples differ, so the direction should be watched rather than explained.

The agency would propose a fact-check of the selected pages and a page brief on the doctors-note topic, since that is where the owned candidate sits. Any edits would follow verification, with results tracked separately.

Teladoc Health

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Teladoc Health have in Online Doctors?

Teladoc Health recorded 346 mentions (86.72%) and 246 recommendations (61.65%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 224; first-place recommendations numbered 160. Framing among its mentions was 259 positive, 87 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Teladoc Health's mention count fell from 372 to 346, while its recommendation count fell from 257 to 246. The recommendation rate was 45.49% and 61.65% respectively.

AI answers contained 2 conflicting claims about Teladoc Health: 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://teladochealth.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://walgreens.com/topic/virtual-healthcare.jsp.

Teladoc Health leads the peer set on every measure, including most first-place positions. It is the name the answers default to. That position is an asset to protect rather than a gap to close, and the main risk is factual drift in how the answers describe it.

The recorded price conflicts are the priority. The agency would propose a fact-check against current primary sources before any correction, then a page brief for the selected owned page. A buyer-question piece on consultation costs could follow once the facts are settled.

Lemonaid Health

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Lemonaid Health have in Online Doctors?

Lemonaid Health recorded 9 mentions (2.26%) and 6 recommendations (1.50%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 1; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 8 positive, 1 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Lemonaid Health's mention count fell from 15 to 9, while its recommendation count fell from 14 to 6. The recommendation rate was 2.48% and 1.50% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Lemonaid Health: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://lemonaidhealth.com/services/urinary-tract-infection.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://walgreens.com/topic/virtual-healthcare/womens-health/online-uti-treatment.jsp.

Lemonaid Health has the smallest presence in the peer set, with few mentions and no first-place positions. Its mentions are mostly positive, so the wording is not the problem; the issue is being included at all. The observed UTI questions are a narrow but relevant opening.

The agency would propose a page brief for the selected owned UTI page and a buyer-question piece built around those questions. Verification of current facts would come first, and the third-party candidate would be reviewed before any request.

Doctor on Demand

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Doctor on Demand have in Online Doctors?

Doctor on Demand recorded 258 mentions (64.66%) and 190 recommendations (47.62%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 137; first-place recommendations numbered 21. Framing among its mentions was 193 positive, 65 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Doctor on Demand's mention count fell from 373 to 258, while its recommendation count fell from 273 to 190. The recommendation rate was 48.32% and 47.62% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Doctor on Demand: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://doctorondemand.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://telehealth.com/online-doctor/.

Doctor on Demand has strong reach and a high recommendation rate, with a moderate number of first-place positions. It is a frequent and usually endorsed presence, though well behind the leader on top placement. The app-related questions are where it appears most consistently.

The agency would propose a fact-check of the selected pages and a page brief focused on app-based access. Any edits would follow verification of current primary sources, and the work would be tracked separately from measured answer outcomes.

LiveHealth Online

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does LiveHealth Online have in Online Doctors?

LiveHealth Online recorded 40 mentions (10.03%) and 20 recommendations (5.01%) across 399 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 8; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 20 positive, 20 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, LiveHealth Online's mention count fell from 47 to 40, while its recommendation count fell from 31 to 20. The recommendation rate was 5.49% and 5.01% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about LiveHealth Online: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://livehealthonline.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://telehealth.com/online-doctor/.

LiveHealth Online has low visibility and a modest recommendation count, with no first-place positions. Its mentions are evenly split between positive and neutral wording, so the answers describe it without strong endorsement. That limits how much the current presence can be built on.

The agency would propose a review of the selected owned page and a page brief clarifying its offer and audience. Verification of current facts would come first, and the shared third-party candidate would be checked before any request.

The CiteWorks five-step improvement plan

Step 1. Establish the baseline

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to establish the baseline for Online Doctors?

Build a scorecard that records each company's mentions, recommendations and placements exactly as measured, with the month and sample noted beside them. The point is a traceable starting point, not a ranking to act on immediately. Every later comparison should reference this record.

Document the comparability limits at the same time: which months used different company sets, how many answers each sample included, and which measures are subsets of others. This keeps future reporting honest and prevents small sample shifts from being read as performance change.

Step 2. Verify disputed facts

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to verify disputed facts for Online Doctors?

AI answers contained 13 conflicting claims across 2 companies. Another 0 possible conflicts were excluded because their company matches were uncertain. The conflicting claims need fact-checking before any corrections are proposed.

The recorded conflicts cluster around pricing descriptions for two companies. Before any correction is proposed, each claim needs to be traced to a current primary source, with the entity and date confirmed. A claim that looks contradictory may simply reflect different dates or service tiers.

Where the match is uncertain, the item stays outside the correction queue. The output of this step is a scoped register showing, for each disputed claim, what evidence would settle it and who owns the check. No edits are proposed until that evidence is in hand.

Step 3. Review owned pages

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to review owned pages for Online Doctors?

Assign a page brief to each selected owned page, starting with what the page currently says and which observed questions it could answer. The brief should specify the facts that need verification before any change, not assume the page is wrong. Current contents must be checked directly.

Each brief should name an owner and a completion criterion. Where verification shows the page is accurate, the decision is to leave it unchanged and record why. That record matters as much as the edits themselves.

Step 4. Review third-party sources

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to review third-party sources for Online Doctors?

Prepare source-review packages for the selected third-party pages, beginning with what each page actually covers today. A citation in an answer does not show that the page influenced it, so requests should rest on verified content rather than assumed influence.

Each package should separate confirmed edits, no-change decisions, requests sent and responses received. Publishers are not obliged to act, and the record should reflect that plainly. Priority goes to pages that cover several companies and are most relevant to the disputed claims.

Step 5. Address buyer questions and measure again

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to address buyer questions and measure again for Online Doctors?

Turn the observed questions into content briefs that answer them directly, using verified facts only. The questions show what the answers were asked, not what buyers search for, so the briefs should be treated as a starting hypothesis rather than proven demand.

Measurement should continue on the same basis as the baseline, with delivered work recorded separately from answer outcomes. A fresh scorecard at the end of the period shows what changed without claiming that the work caused it.

Third-party authority and citation opportunities

Questions This Section Answers

• Which cited publisher pages support targeted source review in Online Doctors?

These pages are candidates for review, not confirmed errors. Citation appearances are counted across the captured answers and are not added again for each company.

The publisher list should be prioritized by relevance to the disputed claims and by how many companies each page covers, not by citation counts alone. Pages that span several companies are efficient review targets, but a citation does not establish that the page shaped an answer.

Before any request, each page's current contents need direct verification. The agency would prepare a short review note per publisher recording what the page says now, which claims it touches and whether a request is justified. Pages with no clear link to a disputed claim can wait.

What we'd prioritize first

Start with the baseline scorecard and the fact-review register, because every later decision depends on them. The pricing conflicts for the two companies with recorded conflicts come next, since they are the only items with a clear evidence requirement already identified.

Page briefs and publisher requests follow once facts are confirmed, with confirmed edits and no-change decisions recorded separately. Buyer-question content and a fresh scorecard close the period. Throughout, completed work should be reported apart from measured answer outcomes, and no gain should be promised in advance.

Methodology and conclusion

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the Online Doctors sample and source-review limits allow us to conclude?

This report covers 2026-11. The exact dates when the original AI answers were collected have not been verified. The visibility rates use 399 answers that met the benchmark's inclusion rules. A company is recommended only when the answer both endorses it and uses positive wording. Top 3 and first-place counts are part of those recommendations, not extra recommendations.

An answer can mention or recommend several companies, so company counts cannot be added to find the number of distinct answers. The net sentiment score is positive minus negative mentions, divided by all company mentions; it describes answer wording, not customer satisfaction.

The wider citation analysis covers 800 captured answers and 5497 appearances of cited URLs. Citation appearances across all captured answers differ from the number of benchmark answers citing a page and the number that also recommend a company. The current contents of cited pages and disputed company claims still need independent verification.

Monthly sample coverage:

July 2026 measured a different set of companies, so it is excluded from this comparison. August 2026 measured a different set of companies, so it is excluded from this comparison. September 2026 measured a different set of companies, so it is excluded from this comparison.

The answer samples differ between months. These comparisons show how the recorded results changed; they do not establish why they changed.

The results describe how the captured answers worded their responses in the reporting month, not customer satisfaction or verified company facts. Mentions, recommendations and placements are nested measures, and company counts cannot be added to find distinct answers. The two months are separate samples, so the recorded movement shows what changed, not why.

The proposed work is a disciplined sequence: establish the baseline, verify disputed facts, brief pages and sources, answer observed questions, then measure again on the same basis. Success would be shown by recorded work and a comparable scorecard, not by a claim that any intervention caused a change.