5WPR
Get in touch
212.999.5585info@5wpr.com

5W RESEARCH

The Esports Organization AI Visibility Index 2026

G2 Esports leads the 2026 AI Visibility Index for esports organizations, appearing in 53.5% of AI answers. This study examines how top teams like Fnatic and Team Liquid rank across AI search engines and specific demand clusters, highlighting the importance of AI visibility for brand recognition and fan engagement.

AI answers analyzed
144
G2 Esports appearance rate, the category leader
53.5%
Brands named across the study
25
Answers carrying retrieval evidence
49%

AI Search Visibility for Best Esports Organization to Follow: 2026 Brand Study

G2 Esports led the measured AI visibility results for "best esports organization to follow" prompts. G2 Esports appeared in 53.5% of answers returned, with a 95% interval of 45.3% to 61.4%. The result matters because a brand omitted from generated recommendations has less opportunity to enter a fan's or sponsor's shortlist.

Fnatic Ltd. ranked second at 46.5%, and Team Liquid ranked third at 45.1%. Their intervals overlap with G2 Esports and with each other, so this sample does not establish that one is more visible than the others. It does show that these three brands formed the leading group in the measured prompts.

Which esports organizations lead the leaderboard?

G2 Esports ranked first among the brands measured, followed by Fnatic Ltd., Team Liquid, Team Vitality, T1, Natus Vincere, Gen.G, FaZe Clan, Cloud9, and Thieves. Appearance rates use 144 answers returned.

The ranking records how often each brand was named, not a judgment about competitive performance, sponsorship value, or fan preference. The measured prompts covered Counter-Strike, League of Legends, Valorant, sponsorship, and organization headquarters in Europe and Asia.

Appearance rate is the share of the 144 returned AI answers in which each brand was named.

AI visibility leaderboard

Appearance rate — top 15

1
G2 Esports
53.5%
2
Fnatic Ltd.
46.5%
3
Team Liquid
45.1%
4
Team Vitality
36.1%
5
T1
31.9%
6
Natus Vincere
30.6%
7
Gen.G
29.2%
8
FaZe Clan
25.7%
9
Cloud9
23.6%
10
Thieves
19.4%
11
Paper Rex
13.9%
12
Sentinels
13.9%
13
Team Spirit
13.2%
14
EDward Gaming
12.5%
15
MOUZ
11.8%
#BrandNamed inAppearance rate95% intervalAvg position
1G2 Esports77/14453.5%45.3%–61.4%4.7
2Fnatic Ltd.67/14446.5%38.6%–54.7%5.3
3Team Liquid65/14445.1%37.2%–53.3%4.8
4Team Vitality52/14436.1%28.7%–44.2%5.4
5T146/14431.9%24.9%–39.9%3.8
6Natus Vincere44/14430.6%23.6%–38.5%6
7Gen.G42/14429.2%22.4%–37.1%5.6
8FaZe Clan37/14425.7%19.3%–33.4%5.9
9Cloud934/14423.6%17.4%–31.2%7.6
10Thieves28/14419.4%13.8%–26.7%7
11Paper Rex20/14413.9%9.2%–20.5%4.6
12Sentinels20/14413.9%9.2%–20.5%7.8
13Team Spirit19/14413.2%8.6%–19.7%5.4
14EDward Gaming18/14412.5%8.1%–18.9%5.7
15MOUZ17/14411.8%7.5%–18.1%7.9

The leading intervals overlap: G2 Esports spans 45.3% to 61.4%, Fnatic Ltd. spans 38.6% to 54.7%, and Team Liquid spans 37.2% to 53.3%. The difference between these brands is within the margin of this sample. Team Vitality's 28.7% to 44.2% interval also overlaps Team Liquid's interval.

How do the leading brands appear in answers?

53.5%

G2 Esports

53.5% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 45.3% to 61.4%, placed G2 Esports first. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named G2 Esports in 28 of 37 answers, or 75.7%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 25 of 35, or 71.4%; Gemini (Google) named it in 17 of 36, or 47.2%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 7 of 36, or 19.4%. G2 Esports averaged position 4.7 when named. Its owned domain was cited 11 times, a 7.8% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

46.5%

Fnatic Ltd.

46.5% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 38.6% to 54.7%, placed Fnatic Ltd. second. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named Fnatic Ltd. in 25 of 37 answers, or 67.6%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 23 of 35, or 65.7%; Gemini (Google) named it in 17 of 36, or 47.2%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 2 of 36, or 5.6%. Fnatic Ltd. averaged position 5.3 when named. Its owned domain was cited 7 times, a 5% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

45.1%

Team Liquid

45.1% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 37.2% to 53.3%, placed Team Liquid third. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named Team Liquid in 24 of 37 answers, or 64.9%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 22 of 35, or 62.9%; Gemini (Google) named it in 13 of 36, or 36.1%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 6 of 36, or 16.7%. Team Liquid averaged position 4.8 when named. Its owned domain was cited 9 times, a 6.4% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

36.1%

Team Vitality

36.1% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 28.7% to 44.2%, placed Team Vitality fourth. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named Team Vitality in 19 of 37 answers, or 51.4%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 12 of 35, or 34.3%; Gemini (Google) named it in 13 of 36, or 36.1%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 8 of 36, or 22.2%. Team Vitality averaged position 5.4 when named. Its owned domain was cited 3 times, a 2.1% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

31.9%

T1

31.9% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 24.9% to 39.9%, placed T1 fifth. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named T1 in 20 of 37 answers, or 54.1%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 11 of 35, or 31.4%; Gemini (Google) named it in 11 of 36, or 30.6%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 4 of 36, or 11.1%. T1 averaged position 3.8 when named, the earliest average position among the top eight. Its owned domain was cited 3 times, a 2.1% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

30.6%

Natus Vincere

30.6% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 23.6% to 38.5%, placed Natus Vincere sixth. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named Natus Vincere in 21 of 37 answers, or 56.8%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 8 of 35, or 22.9%; Gemini (Google) named it in 13 of 36, or 36.1%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 2 of 36, or 5.6%. Natus Vincere averaged position 6 when named. Its owned domain was cited 3 times, a 2.1% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

29.2%

Gen.G

29.2% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 22.4% to 37.1%, placed Gen.G seventh. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named Gen.G in 19 of 37 answers, or 51.4%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 11 of 35, or 31.4%; Gemini (Google) named it in 9 of 36, or 25%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 3 of 36, or 8.3%. Gen.G averaged position 5.6 when named. Its owned domain was cited 0 times, a 0% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

25.7%

FaZe Clan

25.7% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 19.3% to 33.4%, placed FaZe Clan eighth. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named FaZe Clan in 14 of 37 answers, or 37.8%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 14 of 35, or 40%; Gemini (Google) named it in 5 of 36, or 13.9%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 4 of 36, or 11.1%. FaZe Clan averaged position 5.9 when named. Its owned domain was cited 4 times, a 2.8% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

23.6%

Cloud9

23.6% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 17.4% to 31.2%, placed Cloud9 ninth. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named Cloud9 in 11 of 37 answers, or 29.7%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 16 of 35, or 45.7%; Gemini (Google) named it in 6 of 36, or 16.7%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 1 of 36, or 2.8%. Cloud9 averaged position 7.6 when named. Its owned domain was cited 11 times, a 7.8% citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence.

19.4%

Thieves

19.4% appearance rate, with a 95% interval of 13.8% to 26.7%, placed Thieves tenth. Perplexity (sonar-pro) named Thieves in 10 of 37 answers, or 27%; ChatGPT (OpenAI) named it in 11 of 35, or 31.4%; Gemini (Google) named it in 4 of 36, or 11.1%; and Claude (Anthropic) named it in 3 of 36, or 8.3%. Thieves averaged position 7 when named.

Where do the engines disagree?

The engines disagree materially on which organizations to name. Perplexity (sonar-pro) returned 37 answers, ChatGPT (OpenAI) returned 35, Gemini (Google) returned 36, and Claude (Anthropic) returned 36. Each engine uses a different model and retrieval tool, so a gap can reflect system design rather than a brand's underlying visibility.

Each cell uses that engine's own answer count as its denominator, so engines can be compared row by row.

Appearance rate by engine

Perplexity (sonar-pro) rate

01
G2 Esports
75.7%
02
Fnatic Ltd.
67.6%
03
Team Liquid
64.9%
04
Team Vitality
51.4%
05
T1
54.1%
06
Natus Vincere
56.8%
07
Gen.G
51.4%
08
FaZe Clan
37.8%
09
Cloud9
29.7%
10
Thieves
27%
11
Paper Rex
21.6%
12
Sentinels
10.8%
BrandPerplexity (sonar-pro) rateChatGPT (OpenAI) rateGemini (Google) rateClaude (Anthropic) rate
G2 Esports75.7%71.4%47.2%19.4%
Fnatic Ltd.67.6%65.7%47.2%5.6%
Team Liquid64.9%62.9%36.1%16.7%
Team Vitality51.4%34.3%36.1%22.2%
T154.1%31.4%30.6%11.1%
Natus Vincere56.8%22.9%36.1%5.6%
Gen.G51.4%31.4%25%8.3%
FaZe Clan37.8%40%13.9%11.1%
Cloud929.7%45.7%16.7%2.8%
Thieves27%31.4%11.1%8.3%
Paper Rex21.6%11.4%16.7%5.6%
Sentinels10.8%25.7%19.4%0%

Perplexity (sonar-pro) named several organizations much more often than Claude (Anthropic). Fnatic Ltd. appeared in 25 of Perplexity's 37 answers and 2 of Claude's 36. Natus Vincere appeared in 21 of 37 Perplexity answers and 2 of 36 Claude answers. Virtus.pro appeared in 10 of 37 Perplexity answers and in none of ChatGPT's 35, Gemini's 36, or Claude's 36 answers.

ChatGPT (OpenAI) was the strongest engine for Cloud9, naming it in 16 of 35 answers, compared with 11 of 37 for Perplexity (sonar-pro), 6 of 36 for Gemini (Google), and 1 of 36 for Claude (Anthropic). It also named Evil Geniuses in 8 of 35 answers, compared with 1 of 37 on Perplexity (sonar-pro), 2 of 36 on Gemini (Google), and none of Claude's 36 answers.

Claude (Anthropic) named fewer of many leading brands, but it named Team Vitality in 8 of 36 answers and Team Falcons in 4 of 36 answers. Team Falcons did not appear in any of ChatGPT's 35 answers. Sentinels, EDward Gaming, Astralis, and several lower-ranked brands also had no Claude appearances. These are engine-specific patterns, not category-wide verdicts.

Which brands lead each demand cluster?

The demand-cluster view identifies which brands led the measured question types, including Counter-Strike, League of Legends, Valorant, brand sponsorship, and Europe and Asia headquarters. It separates broad appearance from the contexts where an organization is most often selected.

The same answers regrouped by the demand cluster each prompt was sampled for; cluster rates use that cluster's own answer count.

Leaders by demand cluster

Leader rate

01
Subcategory: best esports organization headquartered in Asia
48.4%
02
Subcategory: best counter-strike esports team
87.5%
03
Subcategory: best league of legends esports team
75%
04
Subcategory: best valorant esports team
75%
05
Subcategory: best esports org for brand sponsorship
37.5%
06
General best-in-category
80%
07
Primary use case
75%
08
Specific need or condition
100%
09
Quality and premium tier
75%
10
Price and value
100%
11
Beginners and first purchase
75%
12
Comparison and evaluation
75%
13
Durability and longevity
50%
14
Specialist / advanced use
75%
15
Emerging and new entrants
75%
Demand clusterAnswersLeading brandLeader rateRunners-up
Subcategory: best esports organization headquartered in Asia31G2 Esports48.4%Team Vitality 48.4%, Fnatic Ltd. 41.9%, Natus Vincere 35.5%
Subcategory: best counter-strike esports team16Team Vitality87.5%Natus Vincere 75%, MOUZ 75%, G2 Esports 62.5%
Subcategory: best league of legends esports team16T175%Gen.G 75%, G2 Esports 62.5%, Fnatic Ltd. 50%
Subcategory: best valorant esports team16Paper Rex75%Fnatic Ltd. 68.8%, Sentinels 62.5%, LOUD 56.3%
Subcategory: best esports org for brand sponsorship16FaZe Clan37.5%Thieves 37.5%, Fnatic Ltd. 31.3%, Team Liquid 31.3%
General best-in-category5Team Liquid80%T1 80%, G2 Esports 60%, Team Vitality 60%
Primary use case4G2 Esports75%Team Liquid 75%, Fnatic Ltd. 50%, FaZe Clan 50%
Specific need or condition4Team Liquid100%Cloud9 100%, G2 Esports 75%, Fnatic Ltd. 75%
Quality and premium tier4G2 Esports75%Fnatic Ltd. 75%, Team Liquid 75%, T1 75%
Price and value4Thieves100%G2 Esports 75%, Fnatic Ltd. 75%, Team Liquid 75%
Beginners and first purchase4G2 Esports75%Team Liquid 75%, FaZe Clan 75%, Fnatic Ltd. 50%
Comparison and evaluation4G2 Esports75%Team Liquid 75%, T1 75%, Thieves 75%
Durability and longevity4G2 Esports50%Fnatic Ltd. 50%, Team Liquid 50%, Team Vitality 50%
Specialist / advanced use4Fnatic Ltd.75%Team Liquid 75%, G2 Esports 50%, Team Vitality 50%
Emerging and new entrants4Paper Rex75%Karmine Corp 75%, Team Falcons 75%, Gen.G 25%
Where to buy4G2 Esports100%Fnatic Ltd. 75%, Team Liquid 75%, Cloud9 75%
Trust and recommendation4Fnatic Ltd.100%Team Liquid 100%, G2 Esports 75%, Cloud9 75%

Cluster leadership is useful for planning category pages and supporting material. A brand can have lower overall appearance yet lead a narrower question type. These findings apply only to the prompts measured on August 31, 2026.

Where do cited answers get their evidence?

Among citation-eligible brands, G2 Esports and Cloud9 had the highest owned-domain citation rate at 7.8% of 141 answers with retrieval evidence. Team Liquid followed at 6.4%, and Fnatic Ltd. had 5%. Appearance and citation rates use different denominators and should not be compared as if they measure the same event.

Share of the 141 answers with retrieval evidence that cited a URL on the brand's own website.

Owned-domain citation rate

01
G2 Esports
7.8%
02
Fnatic Ltd.
5%
03
Team Liquid
6.4%
04
Team Vitality
2.1%
05
T1
2.1%
06
Natus Vincere
2.1%
07
Gen.G
0%
08
FaZe Clan
2.8%
09
Cloud9
7.8%
10
Paper Rex
0%
11
Sentinels
0.7%
12
Team Spirit
0%

Owned-site citations were limited across the measured results. Several eligible brands appeared in answers but had no owned-domain citations, including Gen.G, Paper Rex, Team Spirit, MOUZ, Karmine Corp, Team Falcons, Ninjas in Pyjamas, LOUD, OG, Rex Regum Qeon, and Virtus.pro.

The engines leaned most often on esports data and reference publishers. escharts.com appeared in 69 of 141 answers with retrieval evidence, a 48.9% source penetration rate. en.wikipedia.org appeared in 53 answers, or 37.6%; vlr.gg appeared in 47, or 33.3%; and liquipedia.net appeared in 45, or 31.9%.

Publishers cited as evidence, counted once per answer rather than once per link.

Most-cited publishers

Answer penetration

01
escharts.com
48.9%
02
en.wikipedia.org
37.6%
03
vlr.gg
33.3%
04
liquipedia.net
31.9%
05
thegamingdiary.com
27.7%
06
reddit.com
27%
07
esportsinsider.com
22.7%
08
esportsearnings.com
16.3%
09
hltv.org
14.9%
10
egamersworld.com
14.2%
11
nerdstreet.com
14.2%
12
gosugamers.net
14.2%
PublisherAnswers citing itAnswer penetration
escharts.com69/14148.9%
en.wikipedia.org53/14137.6%
vlr.gg47/14133.3%
liquipedia.net45/14131.9%
thegamingdiary.com39/14127.7%
reddit.com38/14127%
esportsinsider.com32/14122.7%
esportsearnings.com23/14116.3%
hltv.org21/14114.9%
egamersworld.com20/14114.2%
nerdstreet.com20/14114.2%
gosugamers.net20/14114.2%

The source mix suggests that generated recommendations draw heavily on external databases, reference pages, community discussion, and esports publications. A brand's own site can support its factual footprint, but the measured answers often cited third-party sources.

What does this mean for esports brands?

Interpretation: the leading group has broad name recognition across the measured engines, but no organization has a uniform advantage everywhere. G2 Esports, Fnatic Ltd., and Team Liquid had strong results on Perplexity (sonar-pro) and ChatGPT (OpenAI), while Claude (Anthropic) named each far less often.

Interpretation: brands can use the cluster and engine views to identify the recommendation contexts where they are present or absent. The owned-citation results point to a separate task: publish clear first-party material that can support factual claims about teams, games, sponsorship work, and geography, while monitoring the external sources that appeared in retrieved answers.

Interpretation: do not treat the overall ranking as a single selection score. The sampled questions ask different things, and the engines returned different answer volumes and brand patterns.

How was this AI visibility measured?

This flagship study measured 24 stratified prompts three times per engine on August 31, 2026. It covered Perplexity (sonar-pro), ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Claude (Anthropic). Appearance rates use 144 answers returned. Citation and source rates use 141 answers with retrieval evidence. Of 288 attempted answers, 144 were returned and 144 failed.

How this study was measured

  • Sampling frame fixed first: 24 prompts allocated across the demand clusters before anything was asked.
  • Same questions put to every engine: Perplexity (sonar-pro), ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), Claude (Anthropic), 3 trial(s) each.
  • 144 answers returned of 288 attempted, 141 with retrieval evidence.
  • Product lines rolled up to parent brands using a registry fixed before scoring.
  • Appearance rate reported with a 95% Wilson interval; citation metrics counted only on answers with evidence.

Results describe these prompts on this date. They do not measure all esports searches, fan demand, competitive results, or sponsorship outcomes. Confidence intervals describe variation in this sample, and overlap means the study does not support a claim that one overlapping brand is more visible than another.

Frequently asked questions

Which organization ranked first?

G2 Esports ranked first with a 53.5% appearance rate across 144 answers returned. Its 95% interval was 45.3% to 61.4%.

Is G2 Esports more visible than Fnatic Ltd.?

G2 Esports had a higher measured appearance rate than Fnatic Ltd., 53.5% versus 46.5%. Their 95% intervals overlap, so the difference is within the margin of this sample.

Which engine named G2 Esports most often?

Perplexity (sonar-pro) named G2 Esports in 28 of 37 answers, or 75.7%. ChatGPT (OpenAI) named G2 Esports in 25 of 35 answers, or 71.4%.

Which brand had the strongest ChatGPT result?

G2 Esports appeared in 25 of ChatGPT's 35 returned answers, or 71.4%. Fnatic Ltd. appeared in 23 of 35 answers, and Team Liquid appeared in 22 of 35.

Which eligible brands had the highest owned-domain citation rate?

G2 Esports and Cloud9 each had a 7.8% owned-domain citation rate among 141 answers with retrieval evidence. Team Liquid had 6.4%, and Fnatic Ltd. had 5%.

Which sources appeared most often in cited answers?

escharts.com appeared in 69 of 141 answers with retrieval evidence, for 48.9% source penetration. en.wikipedia.org appeared in 53 answers, and vlr.gg appeared in 47.

Methodology appendix

This appendix is generated directly from the measurement record for this study. It is included so any brand named here can reproduce or challenge the result.

What was measured

  • Category: best esports organization to follow
  • Measurement date: 2026-08-31
  • Depth: flagship — 24 prompts, 3 trial(s) per prompt per engine, 4 engines
  • Answers attempted: 288
  • Answers returned (appearance denominator): 144
  • Answers with retrieval evidence (citation denominator): 141 (49% of attempted)
  • Answers that failed outright: 144
  • Analysis version: study-methodology-v2 · entity registry: entity-registry-2026-08-27

Claim limit: Flagship depth: 24 stratified prompts measured three times per engine, so both between-prompt and repeat-generation variation are observable.

How the prompts were sampled

Fixed sampling frame: client-named subcategories are allocated a guaranteed cell each, then a documented set of generic commercial demand clusters (general best, primary use case, specific need, quality tier, price/value, beginner, comparison, durability, specialist, emerging, retail channel, trust) receives the remaining allocation round-robin. The prompt writer supplies wording inside these cells only and does not choose the category's demand structure.

Demand clusterPromptsScope
Subcategory: best counter-strike esports team2demand specific to "best counter-strike esports team" within best esports organization to follow
Subcategory: best league of legends esports team2demand specific to "best league of legends esports team" within best esports organization to follow
Subcategory: best valorant esports team2demand specific to "best valorant esports team" within best esports organization to follow
Subcategory: best esports org for brand sponsorship2demand specific to "best esports org for brand sponsorship" within best esports organization to follow
Subcategory: best esports organization headquartered in europe2demand specific to "best esports organization headquartered in europe" within best esports organization to follow
Subcategory: best esports organization headquartered in Asia2demand specific to "best esports organization headquartered in Asia" within best esports organization to follow
General best-in-category1the plain, highest-volume 'best X' style demand with no qualifier
Primary use case1the dominant everyday use case for this category
Specific need or condition1a specific buyer need, constraint, body/fit/context requirement or problem to solve
Quality and premium tier1which options are highest quality, most durable or best made
Price and value1budget, value-for-money, cheaper alternatives and whether premium is worth it
Beginners and first purchase1what a first-time buyer with no knowledge of the category should get
Comparison and evaluation1head-to-head style evaluation demand: which brands are better than which, and on what basis
Durability and longevity1which brands last, hold up over time, or fail early
Specialist / advanced use1advanced, professional or enthusiast-level demand inside the category
Emerging and new entrants1newer entrants, recent launches and shifts buyers are only starting to ask about
Where to buy1purchase-channel demand: where to buy, which retailers, direct vs marketplace
Trust and recommendation1which brands are most recommended or most trusted by reviewers and experts

The exact prompts

#PromptClusterShape
1best counter-strike esports teamssub_best_counter_strike_esposhort
2Which Counter-Strike esports organizations are best to follow for consistently elite competition and compelling roster storylines?sub_best_counter_strike_espolong
3best league of legends teamssub_best_league_of_legends_eshort
4Which League of Legends esports organizations have the strongest competitive legacy, current results, and fan content?sub_best_league_of_legends_elong
5best valorant esports teamssub_best_valorant_esports_teshort
6Which Valorant esports organizations are the most exciting to follow across international events and regional leagues?sub_best_valorant_esports_telong
7best esports sponsorship organizationssub_best_esports_org_for_brashort
8Which esports organizations offer brands the best sponsorship reach, audience fit, and campaign activation potential?sub_best_esports_org_for_bralong
9best european esports organizationssub_best_esports_organizatioshort
10Which Europe-headquartered esports organizations are best to follow for major tournament results and strong fan communities?sub_best_esports_organizatiolong
11best asian esports organizationssub_best_esports_organizatioshort
12Which Asia-headquartered esports organizations are leading in competition, fandom, and international influence today?sub_best_esports_organizatiomedium
13best esports organizationsgeneral_bestshort
14Which esports organizations should I follow for reliable match coverage, entertaining content, and active communities?use_caselong
15Which esports organizations are best to follow if I want one team competing in several major game titles?specific_needlong
16highest quality esports organizationspremium_qualityshort
17Which esports organizations provide the best fan experience through polished content, events, merchandise, and community support?value_pricelong
18best esports teams for beginnersbeginnermedium
19Which esports organizations are better to follow for a new fan, and how do their teams, games, and content differ?comparisonlong
20most consistent esports organizationsdurabilityshort
21Which esports organizations are best for serious fans who want detailed analysis, academy coverage, and competitive depth?specialistlong
22rising esports organizations to followemergingmedium
23Where can I buy official merchandise from the best esports organizations, and which teams have reliable direct stores?retaillong
24Which esports organizations are most trusted and recommended by esports journalists, analysts, and longtime fans?trustlong

Engines and systems measured

Retrieval rate

01
Perplexity (sonar-pro)
51.4%
02
ChatGPT (OpenAI)
48.6%
03
Gemini (Google)
45.8%
04
Claude (Anthropic)
50%
EngineModel / systemRetrievalAttemptedReturnedWith retrieval evidenceRetrieval rate
Perplexity (sonar-pro)perplexity/sonar-pronative Perplexity web search72373751.4%
ChatGPT (OpenAI)openai/gpt-5.6-terraOpenAI web search tool72353548.6%
Gemini (Google)google/gemini-3.7-flashGoogle Search grounding (google_search tool)72363345.8%
Claude (Anthropic)anthropic/claude-sonnet-4Anthropic web search tool72363650%

Results are not strictly comparable across engines: each engine uses a different model, a different retrieval tool and a different answer format, so a gap between two engines can reflect system design as much as brand visibility.

How each metric is defined

  • Appearance rate — the share of returned answers that named the brand. Measured on every answer the engine returned, whether or not it searched the web, so an engine's retrieval behaviour does not silently change the denominator.
  • Macro appearance rate — the mean of the per-prompt appearance rates, so each prompt counts once regardless of how many engines answered it.
  • 95% interval — Wilson score interval on the appearance rate. Where two brands' intervals overlap, this study does not support a claim that one is more visible than the other.
  • Owned-domain citation rate — the share of answers with retrieval evidence that cited a URL on the brand's own domain. This is a narrow measure of the brand's own site being used as a source; it is not a measure of total mentions.
  • Share of all citations — the brand's own domain as a share of all attributed publisher citations in the study.
  • Not measured — the brand's official domain could not be established, so no citation result exists. This is never reported as 0%.
  • 0% — the metric could be evaluated and the event did not occur.
  • Average position — mean position of the brand's first mention in the answer's ordered list of named brands.
  • Cross-engine consistency — the share of engines that named the brand at least once.
  • Repeat consistency — the share of repeated prompt/engine cells where the brand appeared in every trial. Lower values mean the engine's answer is unstable rather than the brand being absent.

Evidence rules

  • An answer counts as having retrieval evidence only when the engine returned a retrieval receipt (search annotations or grounding records). A URL the model merely typed into its prose is not treated as evidence that it searched.
  • Sources are attributed to the publisher behind each retrieval receipt. Intermediary and redirect hosts are never reported as publishers.
  • Publisher identity could not be established for 1 retrieval receipt(s); those are disclosed here rather than attributed or dropped.
  • Source counts are answer-level: a publisher counts once per answer in which it was cited, not once per URL.

Full results with denominators and intervals

Appearance rate — top 15

1
G2 Esports
53.5%
2
Fnatic Ltd.
46.5%
3
Team Liquid
45.1%
4
Team Vitality
36.1%
5
T1
31.9%
6
Natus Vincere
30.6%
7
Gen.G
29.2%
8
FaZe Clan
25.7%
9
Cloud9
23.6%
10
Thieves
19.4%
11
Paper Rex
13.9%
12
Sentinels
13.9%
13
Team Spirit
13.2%
14
EDward Gaming
12.5%
15
MOUZ
11.8%
#BrandNamed inAppearance rateMacro rate95% intervalOwned-domain citations
1G2 Esports77/14453.5%56.1%45.3%–61.4%11/141 (7.8%)
2Fnatic Ltd.67/14446.5%49.6%38.6%–54.7%7/141 (5%)
3Team Liquid65/14445.1%51.3%37.2%–53.3%9/141 (6.4%)
4Team Vitality52/14436.1%34.8%28.7%–44.2%3/141 (2.1%)
5T146/14431.9%35.4%24.9%–39.9%3/141 (2.1%)
6Natus Vincere44/14430.6%31.7%23.6%–38.5%3/141 (2.1%)
7Gen.G42/14429.2%29.8%22.4%–37.1%0/141 (0%)
8FaZe Clan37/14425.7%29.6%19.3%–33.4%4/141 (2.8%)
9Cloud934/14423.6%30.3%17.4%–31.2%11/141 (7.8%)
10Thieves28/14419.4%24.6%13.8%–26.7%domain not established — excluded from citation metrics
11Paper Rex20/14413.9%12.2%9.2%–20.5%0/141 (0%)
12Sentinels20/14413.9%13.9%9.2%–20.5%1/141 (0.7%)
13Team Spirit19/14413.2%13.6%8.6%–19.7%0/141 (0%)
14EDward Gaming18/14412.5%9.7%8.1%–18.9%domain not established — excluded from citation metrics
15MOUZ17/14411.8%9.9%7.5%–18.1%0/141 (0%)
16Astralis17/14411.8%10.4%7.5%–18.1%4/141 (2.8%)
17Bilibili Gaming17/14411.8%9.5%7.5%–18.1%domain not established — excluded from citation metrics
18Karmine Corp16/14411.1%10.7%7%–17.3%0/141 (0%)
19Team Falcons15/14410.4%12.4%6.4%–16.5%0/141 (0%)
20Ninjas in Pyjamas11/1447.6%6.8%4.3%–13.2%0/141 (0%)
21LOUD11/1447.6%6.6%4.3%–13.2%0/141 (0%)
22Evil Geniuses11/1447.6%9.9%4.3%–13.2%3/141 (2.1%)
23OG11/1447.6%7.1%4.3%–13.2%0/141 (0%)
24Rex Regum Qeon11/1447.6%7.6%4.3%–13.2%0/141 (0%)
25Virtus.pro10/1446.9%7.6%3.8%–12.3%0/141 (0%)

Entity handling

Product lines and model names roll up to their parent brand for brand-level metrics, using a registry fixed before scoring. Nothing is merged on the basis of this study's own counts alone.

No roll-ups were applied in this study.

Held for human classification before the next study: Team Vitality, Team Spirit, MOUZ, Natus Vincere, FaZe Clan, G2 Esports, Astralis, Virtus.pro, Ninjas in Pyjamas, Team Liquid, FURIA, The MongolZ, FURIA Esports, Mathieu “ZywOo” Herbaut, Vitality, Spirit, MOUZ, and Natus Vincere, Full Brand Name, HLTV World Rankings, Valve Regional Standings, Team Falcons, Gen.G[13][16], T1[13][16], Bilibili Gaming[1][13][16], Anyone’s Legend[13][16], Hanwha Life Esports[1][13], G2 Esports[7][13], FlyQuest[12][14], Gen.G, T1, Bilibili Gaming, Anyone’s Legend, Hanwha Life Esports, Samsung, FlyQuest, Competitive Record, Storylines, Strike esports organizations, Complexity Gaming, ENCE, Add two more teams, Region.

Limits of these findings

  • This is a point-in-time measurement of what the named systems returned for these exact prompts on 2026-08-31. Engine behaviour changes without notice.
  • The prompt set is a stratified sample of category demand, not a census. Results describe these prompts and should not be read as representative of all searches in the category.
  • Where intervals overlap, differences between brands are not statistically distinguishable at this sample size.
  • A brand not listed here was not measured as absent — it simply was not named in these answers.
  • Appearance is a visibility measure, not an endorsement, a quality judgement or a market-share estimate.
  • 3 of 25 ranked brand(s) had no official domain established before scoring, so they carry appearance results only and are excluded from citation metrics and source tables rather than being reported as zero.

Related

More from the series

The Med Spa & Aesthetic Medicine AI Visibility Index 2026

Research

The Med Spa & Aesthetic Medicine AI Visibility Index 2026

AI IS INVENTING

Research

AI IS INVENTING

The 5W Retrieval Index

Research

The 5W Retrieval Index

Get in touch

Let's build your next chapter.

Tell us what you're working on. A senior strategist will respond within one business day.

Email
info@5wpr.com
Phone
212.999.5585
Offices
New York · HQ469 7th Avenue, Floor 8
New York, NY 10018
Miami100 SE 2nd Street, Floor 38
Miami, FL 33131
Tampa110 South 12th Street
Tampa, FL 33602