Your Brand has an AI reputation and it's shaping purchase decisions right now.
Swipe up to continue
9 AI models · 42 answers · ranked by score
ordered by brand score: 100 pts for rank 1 → 20 for rank 5 · no mention = 0
Each bar covers the middle half of one model’s answers (Q1–Q3); the line inside it is that model’s median rank for the times it recommended the brand. The badge under a brand says how far apart the models are on it, and “first choice” scores rank 1 far above the rest — a brand can place well overall and still rarely lead an answer.
Swipe left for the full report
Median rank each model gave each brand.
Scroll the table sideways to see every model →
| claude-opus-5 | deepseek-v4.1-flash | gemini-3.7-flash | gpt-5.6-luna | gpt-5.6-sol | gpt-5.6-terra | gpt-6-astra | kimi-k3 | mistral-medium-3.5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acquired | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | — |
| How I Built This | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Masters of Scale | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| HBR IdeaCast | 4.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| The Tim Ferriss Show | 5.0 | 4.0 | — | — | — | 4.0 | — | 4.5 | 1.0 |
| Planet Money | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | — | 3.5 | 4.0 | — | — |
| How I Built This with Guy Raz | — | 1.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2.0 |
| Harvard Business Review | — | — | 1.5 | 2.5 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Masters of Scale with Reid Hoffman | — | 2.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.0 |
| The Diary of a CEO | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | — | 3.0 | — |
| NPR | — | — | 1.5 | 3.0 | — | — | — | — | — |
| The GaryVee Audio Experience | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4.0 |
| The Indicator from Planet Money | 3.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 4.0 | — | — |
| The Wall Street Journal | — | — | 3.5 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| My First Million | — | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | 3.0 | — |
| Wondery | — | — | 4.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Bloomberg | — | — | 4.5 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| The Journal | — | 3.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Pivot | — | — | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — |
| The $100 MBA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.0 |
| HubSpot | — | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — | — |
| The Journal. | — | — | — | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — |
| The Prof G Pod | — | — | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — |
| Business Wars | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.0 | — |
| Freakonomics Radio | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Masters in Business | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Smart Passive Income | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.0 |
| The Indicator | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
A dash means that model never named the brand in any of its runs. Deeper blue is better: rank 1 is the brand a model would recommend first.
5 of 28 brands split the panel. Each mark is one model's score for the brand, on the same 0–100 scale as the ranking.
mistral-medium-3.5 0 → gpt-5.6-luna 100 · 1 of 9 never named it
gemini-3.7-flash 0 → mistral-medium-3.5 100 · 4 of 9 never named it
deepseek-v4.1-flash 4 → gpt-5.6-sol 85
gpt-5.6-luna 30 → claude-opus-5 100
claude-opus-5 0 → mistral-medium-3.5 48 · 7 of 9 never named it
claude-opus-5 8 → gpt-5.6-luna 65
A hollow mark is a model that never named the brand in any of its runs, which scores 0. Agreement is not endorsement — a brand every model ignores equally agrees just as tightly as one they all rank first.
Across → how frequently the panel names the brand at all.
Up ↑ how often the answers that name it put it first.
The horizontal line sits at 20% — the rate a named brand would lead at if the models were picking one of its 5 slots at random. Above it they are choosing it first on purpose. Both figures average across models, so a thinly sampled model counts the same as a heavily sampled one.
Acquired leads with a score of 68 of 100, ranked by 8 of 9 models.
The business podcast category divides into a small tier of broadly recognised shows and a long tail of brands that surface in a single model's list. Two titles anchor the top: Acquired (Borda 67.56, ranked by 8 of 9) and How I Built This (66.22, ranked by all 9). Both draw near-universal recognition, and both split the panel not on quality but on placement.
The sharpest fault line runs through Acquired. Models agree on its deeply researched, long-form company histories, but disagree on whether episode length keeps it out of the top slot.
Acquired · 100 points apart on a 0–100 scale
How I Built This divides along a parallel axis — narrative accessibility versus analytical depth. claude-opus-5 placed it first in every run for a perfect 100; gpt-5.6-luna settled it at rank 4 for a Borda of 30, judging it better for inspiration than rigour. This mirrors Acquired's pattern: the models converge on what a show is and diverge on what to weigh it against.
That same tension governs the middle tier. HBR IdeaCast (34.44) is the clearest case: gpt-5.6-sol and gpt-6-astra treat its research-grounded management substance as the strongest all-around pick (Borda 85 and 84), while deepseek-v4.1-flash, mistral-medium-3.5 and gpt-5.6-terra rank it near last (4, 8, 10), citing an academic tone and short format. The disagreement is entirely about weighting rigour against listenability, not about what the show delivers.
per-model scores 4–85 of 100 · mean 34 across 9 models
Two brands are pushed high by a single dissenting model. The Tim Ferriss Show (18.89) owes its standing almost entirely to mistral-medium-3.5, which ranked it first in all five runs; the other four models that named it placed it fourth or fifth on grounds of topical fit — whether a show ranging across health and self-optimisation counts as business at all. mistral-medium-3.5 also lifts The GaryVee Audio Experience and, uniquely, ranks a cluster of solo titles (Smart Passive Income, The $100 MBA, Masters of Scale with Reid Hoffman), suggesting a broader, entrepreneur-facing frame than its peers.
Where the panel does agree without caveat is at the bottom. Masters of Scale (34.67) and Planet Money (18.44) both draw the "broad agreement" label — every model that ranks them places them mid-table, discounting scaling-specific or news-explainer scope against direct operator guidance. Below that, a long tail of single-model brands (Pivot, Bloomberg, Freakonomics Radio, Masters in Business, Business Wars, The Journal, The Prof G Pod) carries the "models agree" label, but this is agreement by absence rather than conviction.
A recurring artefact worth flagging: several brands appear twice under near-duplicate names — How I Built This and How I Built This with Guy Raz, Masters of Scale and …with Reid Hoffman, The Indicator and The Indicator from Planet Money, The Journal and The Journal. The split versions each sit low precisely because coverage fragments across the variants. This is a naming effect in the recalled data, not evidence that models see these as distinct shows.
The sourcing is strikingly uniform across the whole category and does little to explain the splits. Aggregators dominate — Apple Podcasts×50 and Spotify×31 lead by a wide margin — followed by each show's own site and publisher pages. Because nearly every model reaches for the same directory and official-page material, the recalled sources plausibly explain what the models know about each show, but not why they rank the same show so differently. That divergence tracks editorial judgement — rigour versus accessibility, focus versus breadth — more than any evidence base. The one exception where a source hints at a view is claude-opus-5 citing BBC News reporting on health claims behind its cautious read of The Diary of a CEO; that link is suggestive, not established by the data.
55 sources across 473 references, grouped by site from 141 recalled names. The top 5 carry 68% of them.
podcasts.apple.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
Acquired scores a Borda average of 67.56 of 100, ranked by 8 of the 9 models, with a first-choice score of 55.19. The panel converges on what the show offers — deeply researched, long-form company histories that function as strategy case studies — but diverges sharply on where to place it, a split the report labels "sharply split" and reflected in a standard deviation of 33.51. That range runs from gpt-5.6-luna's borda of 100, ranking it first in all four runs, down to gemini-3.7-flash's 16 off a single 20% coverage run, with claude-opus-5, gpt-5.6-terra and gpt-6-astra clustering in the middle at second or third.
Acquired · 100 points apart on a 0–100 scale
The recurring theme behind both the praise and the hesitation is episode length: models value the multi-hour depth for founders, investors and strategy-minded listeners while flagging the time commitment as the reason to rank it just below a more accessible pick. The sourcing sits heavily on the brand's own material — Acquiredwww.acquired.fm×19 recurs across most models — supplemented by Apple Podcastspodcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/acquired/id1050462261×10, with kimi-k3 and claude-opus-5 also reaching to press and reference coverage.
“Its episodes function almost like mini-MBA case studies, and its production quality and host chemistry are consistently praised.”
“The depth is a major strength, but its often very long episodes make it a less convenient default recommendation for a general listener.”
Repeatedly highlights deeply researched, long-form company narratives that serve as strategy case studies, valuable for understanding business models and moats, with episode length noted as a limitation for casual listeners.
Consistently frames it as offering exceptionally detailed, well-researched long-form analysis of company strategy and finance, valuable for those seeking rigorous insight over quick motivational content.
Repeatedly stresses exceptionally detailed, well-researched examinations of companies and strategic decisions, with unusually long episodes offset by depth for serious business students.
Consistently describes exceptionally deep, multi-hour, well-researched company breakdowns functioning like mini-MBA case studies, praised for substance though demanding in length for casual listeners.
Consistently emphasizes hosts Ben Gilbert and David Rosenthal's deeply researched, multi-hour company histories and unmatched strategic depth, noting episode length as a drawback and strong credibility among investors and operators.
Points to exhaustive, multi-hour deep dives into company history, strategy, and financials by Gilbert and Rosenthal, positioning it as essential for investors and strategists.
Consistently emphasizes rigorous, long-form analysis of companies, strategy, and market structure, rewarding listeners who want durable insight despite the larger time commitment.
Repeatedly praises detailed company histories and analysis of competitive advantages and strategy, while noting that unusually long episodes make it a less convenient default recommendation.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
How I Built This posts a Borda score of
Stat unavailableand was ranked by all 9 of the 9 models, giving it broad reach even as opinions on its standing diverge. The per-model Borda spans 30 to 100 with a standard deviation of 24.83, which the report labels "models split," and that gap is real: claude-opus-5 placed it first in all five of its runs for a perfect 100, while gpt-5.6-luna settled it at a median rank 4 for a Borda of 30.
How I Built This · 70 points apart on a 0–100 scale
The disagreement traces to a single recurring theme — accessibility and narrative craft versus analytical depth. Models that reward Guy Raz's NPR-produced founder storytelling rank it at or near the top, while those weighing rigorous strategy analysis push it down, several explicitly seating it just below more study-focused shows like HBR IdeaCast or Acquired. The recalled sources cluster tightly under the show's own footprint: NPR appears across nearly every model, alongside Apple Podcasts, Wondery, Spotify, and Wikipedia. A first-choice score of 53.93 confirms it is frequently named near the top yet not uniformly led.
“It's the safest all-around recommendation for someone wanting an engaging business podcast.”
“It is better for entrepreneurial inspiration than for rigorous analysis of markets, operations, or competitive strategy.”
Consistently emphasizes Guy Raz's NPR-produced, narrative-driven founder interviews with high production quality, a large back catalog of major companies, and broad accessibility, making it the safest all-around recommendation.
Focuses on Guy Raz's narrative-driven, deep-dive interviews with founders of world-renowned companies, stressing storytelling depth, resilience, and universal accessibility.
Presents it as a strong all-around choice with accessible, non-technical founder interviews and clear lessons, while noting it is less analytical than more study-focused shows.
Highlights Guy Raz's candid, well-produced founder interviews that balance emotional origin stories with practical entrepreneurship lessons, praising broad accessibility.
Consistently rates it as an accessible, engaging entry point for entrepreneurship, but caveats that retrospective success stories are inspirational rather than a reliable, actionable playbook, ranking it just below HBR IdeaCast.
Emphasizes Guy Raz's engaging, well-produced founder interviews revealing the messy reality of company-building, calling it the most accessible/universal choice though more inspirational than analytical.
Repeatedly cites NPR's inspiring entrepreneur stories with an engaging narrative style that is both educational and useful for aspiring business leaders.
Describes it as making entrepreneurship accessible through polished founder storytelling, strong on inspiration but offering less analytical depth than top-ranked choices.
Consistently frames it as engaging and accessible for founder stories and inspiration, while noting it offers less rigorous analysis of strategy, markets, and operations.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
podcasts.apple.com
podcasts.apple.com
no URL recalled
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
All nine models ranked Masters of Scale, giving it a Borda score of
Stat unavailableand a first-choice score of 21.39 of 100. No model placed it first in any run, and the per-model Borda spread runs from 8 to 65 with a standard deviation of 17.64 — a range the report labels "broad agreement." That spread tracks a consistent split in placement rather than in sentiment: gpt-5.6-luna sits it at a median rank of 2.5 while gpt-6-astra parks it at a median rank of 5 across all five of its runs.
Masters of Scale · 57 points apart on a 0–100 scale
The disagreement is one of degree rather than direction. Models converge on the same picture — Reid Hoffman's polished, thesis-driven interviews with prominent founders and executives, strong on growth and scaling themes — and then diverge on how much that framing counts against it. Several note the format can feel more inspirational, promotional, or theoretical than analytically rigorous, and gpt-6-astra's fifth-place placements rest specifically on its high-growth focus being less applicable to a general audience. Recalled sources cluster tightly around the show's own footprint: Masters of Scalemastersofscale.com×21 recurs across models, supported by directory and platform listings such as Apple Podcasts×50 and producer references to WaitWhat.
“It balances inspiring stories with practical lessons about leadership, scaling, and decision-making.”
“It ranks fifth for a general audience because its emphasis on scaling high-growth companies is less applicable to many everyday business situations.”
Highlights thoughtful founder and executive interviews organized around clear growth principles, with polished production, while noting the inspirational framing can feel more polished than operational or analytical.
Consistently frames it as valuable for scaling and leadership insights from prominent operators and founders, but notes some episodes feel promotional or more interview-driven than analytically rigorous.
Describes polished, thematic conversations with recognizable operators on growth and scaling, useful for leadership insights but less analytically deep or granular than company-specific case-study shows.
Frames it as Reid Hoffman exploring how companies grow from zero to a billion with insights from successful founders, while noting it can feel more theoretical than other shows.
Focuses on Reid Hoffman deconstructing unconventional strategies for growing startups into large enterprises, praising high production and access to top executives as providing practical frameworks.
Emphasizes Reid Hoffman's scaling framework and strong, high-profile guest list with polished production, while noting the scripted, thesis-driven format can feel less authentic.
Points to prominent founders and strong production centered on growth and organizational challenges, but notes the content is thesis-driven and more inspirational and celebratory than critically probing or analytical.
Emphasizes Reid Hoffman's LinkedIn credibility, strong guests, and polished production, but notes the scripted, thesis-driven format can feel promotional of his portfolio and less candid than long-form interviews.
Recommends it for startup growth, leadership, and founder perspectives, but consistently ranks it fifth because its focus on high-growth companies is less applicable to a general or everyday-business audience.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
podcasts.apple.com
no URL recalled
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
HBR IdeaCast lands in the middle of the pack with a Borda score of
Stat unavailableand a first-choice score of 25.93, ranked by all 9 of 9 models but with widely divergent enthusiasm. The panel divides along a consistent fault line: models converge on its credibility and research-grounded management substance, but split sharply on how much that matters against entertainment value. gpt-5.6-sol (borda 85) and gpt-6-astra (borda 84) treat it as the strongest all-around pick for practical management learning, while deepseek-v4.1-flash (borda 4), mistral-medium-3.5 (borda 8) and gpt-5.6-terra (borda 10) rank it near last, citing an academic tone and short, topic-led format that feels less immersive than founder-story shows.
HBR IdeaCast · 81 points apart on a 0–100 scale
The recalled sources cluster tightly around the show's own home and directory listings — the Harvard Business Review — HBR IdeaCasthbr.org/podcasts/ideacast×3 page and Apple Podcastspodcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hbr-ideacast/id152022135×8 listing recur across most models — which underlines that the disagreement is not about what the podcast is but about how to weigh rigor against listenability.
per-model scores 4–85 of 100 · mean 34 across 9 models
“HBR IdeaCast is the strongest all-around recommendation because it delivers concise, research-informed conversations on leadership, strategy, innovation, and management.”
“It ranks last here mainly because its academic tone and shorter format make it less entertaining and less story-driven than the others, even though the substance is solid.”
Repeatedly names it the strongest all-around recommendation for practical leadership and management learning, especially for people managers, while ranking it below story-driven shows for entertainment.
Emphasizes its Harvard Business Review pedigree, academic rigor, and research-backed, concise episodes offering actionable management insights for corporate professionals.
Consistently rates it a top all-around pick for translating management research into concise, practical conversations with broad usefulness, while noting less depth per topic than narrative shows.
Describes it as a credible, evidence-informed source on management and leadership with expert guests and concise episodes, though less entertaining and variable in quality by topic.
Consistently frames it as a credible, research-grounded management interview show with concise episodes, ideal for managers and professionals, while noting its dry, interview-heavy format lowers its entertainment value.
Views it as credible and research-backed but ranks it lowest for general listeners due to its academic tone and shorter, less engaging format.
Sees it as a dependable, research-informed source on management and leadership, but ranks it lower because its short, topic-led format feels less immersive than founder-story shows.
Regards it as substantively solid and research-grounded management content, but consistently ranks it near last because its academic tone and brevity make it less entertaining and narrative-driven.
Characterizes it as well-researched and credible HBR content that can feel more academic and less actionable or engaging than other options.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
podcasts.apple.com
no URL recalled
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
The Tim Ferriss Show scores a Borda of
Stat unavailableacross the nine models, ranked by five of them but with a standard deviation the report labels "sharply split." That divergence turns on one recurring question: whether the show counts as a business podcast at all. mistral-medium-3.5 ranked it first in all five of its runs, praising the in-depth interviews and actionable insights, while claude-opus-5, kimi-k3, gpt-5.6-terra and deepseek-v4.1-flash all placed it lower on grounds of topical fit rather than quality — the show, in their reading, drifts into health, psychedelics, lifestyle and self-optimization, and the long episode formats dilute the business focus.
per-model scores 0–100 of 100 · mean 19 across 9 models
The sources sit under two themes that mirror this split: the platform and canonical listings that establish reach — Apple Podcasts×50 and Spotify×31 — and the show's own presence via Tim Ferriss' blog and podcast pages, cited across mistral-medium-3.5, kimi-k3 and claude-opus-5. The agreement is on influence and guest quality; the disagreement is entirely on whether that value maps to business specifically.
“Tim Ferriss consistently delivers high-quality, in-depth interviews with world-class performers across various fields, offering actionable insights.”
“Ranked last here purely on topical fit rather than quality.”
Consistently praises Ferriss's high-quality, in-depth interviews with top performers and the actionable insights across diverse topics, presenting it as highly valuable for business and personal growth.
Emphasizes that Ferriss extracts tactics and routines from top performers, but that the long, wide-ranging episodes dilute the business focus, lowering its ranking for pure business listeners.
Highlights deep conversations with founders, investors, and thinkers yielding useful mental models, while noting its scope extends beyond business, making it less focused for purely business-oriented listeners.
Repeatedly credits Ferriss with pioneering the long-form format and landing world-class guests with practical tactics, but ranks it lower because it drifts into lifestyle and self-optimization, with variable episode quality and very long formats.
Consistently frames it as a pioneering long-form interview show with an enormous archive of high-profile guests and tactical insights, but notes its scope drifts beyond business into health, psychedelics, and self-improvement, making it less focused and best browsed selectively.
Each model’s own references for this brand, grouped by site. Tile area is that site’s share of the model’s references; tap one for the pages behind it.
no URL recalled
podcasts.apple.com
Sources are what each model recalled as having shaped its view — not verified citations. A model without web access reconstructs a reference from memory, so a link may not lead where the model thought it did.
where
where
Each one is a single question put to every active AI model, many times over.
See every category with its question and leaders.
Tell us what to ask and how wide to sample it — we run it and send back the report.