AI names LG most in home appliances, 7 points clear

When buyers ask AI assistants questions like “What are the best home appliance brands to consider for kitchen and laundry, including refrigerators, ranges, ovens, dishwashers, washers, dryers, microwaves, and cooktops across different price tiers?” or “Best affordable kitchen and laundry appliances under $800?”, a small set of home appliancesget cited every time. Most don't. This report measures which.

Who AI cites most

LG is cited in 82 of 100 prompt-engine pairs (82%). 95% confidence interval 76-90.

Concentration

The top 3 brands (LG, Bosch, Samsung) capture 35% of all citations in this segment. 7 of 20 tracked brands are cited in fewer than 1 in 10 prompt-engine pairs.

Where the field sits

Of 20 brands tested: 2 in default-choice, 4 in repeat-use, 5 in first-encounter, 9 not yet cited. Overall, AI cites a brand from this segment in 32% of buyer-intent prompt-engine pairs.

Engine asymmetry

Miele is cited in 83% of Claude prompts but only 35% on Grok, visibility is engine-specific, not universal.

Notable absence

Dacor is not yet cited, 0 prompts across all 100 prompt-engine pairs. A recognizable brand AI is not yet surfacing.

Average Panel Score across the segment is 34.

Analyst note. LG leads the home appliance segment with a Panel Score of 84, 7 points ahead of Bosch.

LG has a clear lead in the home appliance segment with a Panel Score of 84. It excels in the discovery phase at 95, showing strong initial consumer interest. Bosch follows with a Panel Score of 77, performing best on ChatGPT with a score of 90. Samsung is in the foothold tier with a Panel Score of 73, particularly strong in discovery at 85. There are nine invisible brands, showing a drop-off beyond the leaders and foothold brands.

Risk. Samsung's visibility is uneven across engines, with a low of 53 on Perplexity, which could threaten its foothold status.

Ranked by Panel Score, a 0 to 100 score that weights four buying phases: Discovery, Filtered Discovery, Comparison and Evaluation. Citations count fully and mentions count at half weight; engines are weighted equally. Spread is the gap between a brand's best and worst engine: under 15pp is durable, 50pp and up is engine-dependent. Engine columns count the prompts (out of 20) where that engine cited the brand as a recommendation.

Default choice (75+)

AI's go-to recommendation in home appliances. The tier other brands are competing into.

Repeat use (50 to 74)

Cited often enough to feel reliably present across prompts and engines. One signal away from default.

First encounter (25 to 49)

Discovered and cited occasionally, but visibility is inconsistent. Real to AI, not yet trusted.

Not yet cited (0 to 24)

AI does not surface this brand for buyer-intent prompts in home appliances.

How often each engine cites a brand from this category as a recommendation, averaged across all 20 brands tested. Perplexity and Grok search the live web; ChatGPT and Claude lean more on trained knowledge; Gemini blends both.

Citation rate by buying phase, averaged across all brands tested.

Each cell is the brand's citation rate for that phase, shaded darker as the rate rises. A solid dark row is a durable brand: AI cites it across the whole funnel. Dark on the left and pale on the right is awareness without recommendation, the demand-leak pattern. Pale on the left and dark on the right is a brand AI weighs in Comparison and Evaluation but does not surface in Discovery.

Derived metrics computed from the same data, showing how this segment behaves on AI search. The State of AI Search compares them across segments.

Aggregated across every brand, prompt and engine combination tested. These are the names AI surfaces when buyers ask about home appliances.

Ranked by mention count and engine breadth. These are panel candidates: brands AI treats as part of the category even though we are not measuring them yet. Open a row to read the AI quote that surfaced it.

We re-ran the same 20 canonical prompts under eight demographic system-prompt variants: gender (men, women) crossed with generation (Gen Z 18-29, Millennial 30-45, Gen X 46-61, Boomer 62+). Age ranges follow Pew Research boundaries. The system prompt names the age range only; the labels here are descriptive.

Each is a category-specific decision drawn from this month's data, with the mapou service that puts it into practice.

1. Concentration risk

   In home appliances, AI effectively recommends 12.1 of 20 tracked brands. The top brand captures 12% of citations. The next 2 capture another 12%. Visibility is concentrated but not winner-takes-all.

   How mapou helps: GEO & Citation Architecture restructures your entity data so you can break into the top set.

2. Engine convergence

   Unusually for our panel, home appliances engines mostly agree. Cross-engine correlation is 0.90 (1.0 = perfect). Improvements on one engine are likely to lift others. Lower-effort optimization than categories where engines split.

   How mapou helps: AI Visibility Audit confirms your position is consistent across engines before you commit budget.

3. Visibility tier mix

   In home appliances, 2 of 20 tracked brands clear Panel Score 75 (default-choice tier). 9 are below Panel Score 25 (not yet cited). The strategy differs at each tier. If you are below 25, you need foundational visibility infrastructure before tactical optimization.

   How mapou helps: AI Visibility Audit identifies your tier; GEO & Citation Architecture moves you up.

The 20 canonical prompts span the four Panel Score phases (Discovery, Filtered Discovery, Comparison, Evaluation). The set is fixed at methodology v1.0 and reused every monthly run, so Panel Score changes are paired comparisons, not noise.

The exact prompt templates and phase-weighting formula are part of mapou's proprietary methodology, shared with paying clients alongside custom benchmarks for their brand. See the framework.