Your Brand has an AI reputation and it's shaping purchase decisions right now.
Swipe up to continue
6 AI models · 4 answers per model · 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 | gemini-3.7-flash | gpt-5.6-luna | gpt-5.6-sol | gpt-5.6-terra | kimi-k3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stanford Graduate School of Business | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | — | 1.0 |
| INSEAD | 3.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| Harvard Business School | 2.0 | 3.0 | — | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.5 |
| BYU Marriott School of Business | 5.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| The Wharton School | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | — | 3.0 |
| Texas McCombs | — | — | 2.0 | — | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| Chicago Booth | 4.5 | 5.0 | — | 2.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Georgia Tech Scheller | — | — | 3.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | — |
| Darden | — | — | 3.0 | — | 3.5 | — |
| Indiana Kelley | — | — | 4.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | — |
| Gies College of Business | — | — | — | 1.0 | — | — |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology | — | — | 4.0 | 5.0 | — | — |
| Rice | — | — | — | — | 4.0 | — |
| Ross | — | — | 4.0 | — | 4.0 | — |
| Questrom School of Business | — | — | — | 2.0 | — | — |
| Tuck | — | — | — | — | 3.0 | — |
| University of Florida | — | — | — | 3.0 | — | — |
| Kellogg School of Management | — | — | — | 5.0 | — | 5.0 |
| UNC Kenan-Flagler | — | — | 4.0 | — | — | — |
| University of Georgia | — | — | — | 4.0 | — | — |
| Carnegie Mellon Tepper | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — |
| Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad | 5.0 | — | — | — | — | — |
| UCLA Anderson | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — |
| University of Washington | — | — | — | 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.
6 of 24 brands split the panel. Each mark is one model's score for the brand, on the same 0–100 scale as the ranking.
gpt-5.6-terra 0 → kimi-k3 100 · 1 of 6 never named it
claude-opus-5 0 → gpt-5.6-luna 80 · 3 of 6 never named it
gpt-5.6-luna 0 → claude-opus-5 75 · 1 of 6 never named it
gemini-3.7-flash 5 → gpt-5.6-luna 75
gpt-5.6-luna 25 → gemini-3.7-flash 80
gpt-5.6-terra 0 → kimi-k3 55 · 1 of 6 never named it
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.
Stanford Graduate School of Business leads with a score of 58 of 100, ranked by 5 of 6 models.
The category splits cleanly along one fault line: whether "ROI" means prestige-and-earnings or cost-and-payback. The two readings produce almost opposite rankings, and the split runs largely between model families rather than across every brand evenly.
Stanford GSB is the clearest example. It carries a median rank of 1 across all models, but that headline hides a divide. claude-opus-5, gemini-3.7-flash, and kimi-k3 each rank it first, anchoring on the highest post-MBA compensation and Silicon Valley access. Both GPT models that ranked it — gpt-5.6-luna and gpt-5.6-sol — place it at median 4, weighting attendance cost and forgone earnings more heavily.
However, its high cost and the earnings forgone during the degree make its expected financial ROI less consistently compelling than lower-cost programs, especially for students without scholarship support. — gpt-5.6-luna
The likely driver is source mix rather than a genuine dispute over outcomes. The models ranking Stanford top lean on employment-report and ranking sources; the GPT models pair those with cost-side pages such as Stanford GSB Cost of Attendance. That said, the source lists alone do not prove causation — this is a plausible reading, not something the data confirms.
BYU Marriott shows the widest divergence in the category, median rank 4 but Q1 1 and Q3 5. The gpt-5.6 family clusters at the top (luna and terra at 1, sol at 2), treating low tuition and solid six-figure placement as decisive. claude-opus-5, gemini-3.7-flash, and kimi-k3 all put it at 5, accepting the same value logic but treating the capped earnings ceiling as disqualifying for a top slot.
BYU Marriott is one of the strongest value choices because its tuition is unusually low for a nationally recognized full-time MBA, while graduates still access consulting, technology, and finance recruiting. — gpt-5.6-luna
This is the cleanest illustration of the two ROI definitions producing opposite ranks from shared facts.
Booth mirrors the split but with the model families swapped. gpt-5.6-terra (2), kimi-k3 (2), and gpt-5.6-sol (2.5) rank it high; claude-opus-5 (4.5) and gemini-3.7-flash (5) rank it low. Here kimi-k3 sits on the payback side, citing a Forbes ROI-based ranking, while claude-opus-5 emphasizes total cost.
Forbes' ROI-based ranking put Booth at the top for five-year MBA gain, reflecting exceptional salary growth relative to cost. — kimi-k3
The Forbes ROI ranking is a plausible source behind kimi-k3's high placement, though the same model puts BYU at 5 — so its logic is not uniformly cost-first, cautioning against reading any model as applying one fixed definition everywhere.
INSEAD is the strongest point of consensus, median 2, with all three GPT models at 1 and gemini and kimi at 2. Every model credits the one-year format for halving opportunity cost. Only claude-opus-5 (3.5) qualifies it, on the compressed timeline limiting internships — a difference of emphasis, not of the core cost case.
Wharton also draws fairly tight agreement (median 3.5), with disagreement confined to cost rather than earning power. Kellogg is unanimous where ranked, both gpt-5.6-sol and kimi-k3 at 5, both citing weaker finance exposure.
HBS lands at median 3 with a real spread: claude-opus-5 at 2, gpt-5.6-terra at 5. No model disputes the compensation or alumni network; the divergence is entirely about whether total cost and two-year opportunity cost offset that.
I rank it fourth because its large total cost and two-year opportunity cost can lengthen payback, particularly for candidates who already have lucrative careers or receive limited aid. — gpt-5.6-sol
A large share of brands — Gies, Questrom, Tuck, University of Florida, Rice, UNC Kenan-Flagler, University of Georgia, Tepper, IIM Ahmedabad, UCLA Anderson, University of Washington — appear in only one model's ranking, so no agreement or disagreement can be measured. Notably, most of the affordability and online-focused picks (Gies, Questrom, Georgia Tech Scheller at rank 1 for sol) come from the GPT family, consistent with its payback-first framing. Whether that reflects the models' reasoning or just which brands each happened to recall is not something the data settles.
The most-recalled sources — Poets&Quants (25×), U.S. News, and the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking — appear across both camps, so they do not explain the divergence on their own. The distinguishing feature is that the payback-leaning rankings more often surface program-specific cost-of-attendance and tuition pages alongside employment reports, and kimi-k3 and gpt-5.6-terra reach for Forbes' ROI-based ranking. The link between those cost-side sources and the lower prestige-school placements is the most consistent pattern in the data, but it remains a hypothesis about what drove each ranking, not a demonstrated cause.
74 sources across 338 references, grouped by site from 177 recalled names. The top 5 carry 46% of them.
usnews.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.
also named Stanford University
Stanford Graduate School of Business lands at a median rank of 1 across all models (Q1 1, Q3 1) over 16 ranked answers from 5 models, though that headline figure masks a clear split. Three models—claude-opus-5, gemini-3.7-flash, and kimi-k3—each place it at a median rank of 1, converging on a single theme: the highest post-MBA compensation of any program, paired with Silicon Valley access to venture capital, technology, private equity, and founder equity, which they argue offsets premium tuition to produce the strongest long-run payback. These models draw on employment-report data (Stanford GSB Employment Report) alongside ranking sources such as the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking, Poets&Quants, Forbes, U.S. News, and Bloomberg Businessweek. Kimi-k3 in particular anchors its case in specific compensation figures.
The disagreement comes from the two GPT models. gpt-5.6-luna places it at a median rank of 4 (Q1 4, Q3 4) over 1 ranked answer, and gpt-5.6-sol at a median rank of 4 (Q1 2.5, Q3 4.5) over 3 ranked answers. Both acknowledge the same upside but weight cost and opportunity cost more heavily, arguing that high attendance costs and uncertain near-term entrepreneurial outcomes make the measurable ROI less predictable than lower-cost programs ranked above it. Their reasoning leans on cost-side sources such as Stanford GSB Cost of Attendance and Stanford GSB Financial Aid alongside the employment reports and Financial Times ranking.
Stanford consistently posts the highest median total compensation of any MBA program, with recent classes exceeding $250,000 thanks to outsized placement in tech, venture capital, and private equity. — kimi-k3
However, its high cost and the earnings forgone during the degree make its expected financial ROI less consistently compelling than lower-cost programs, especially for students without scholarship support. — gpt-5.6-luna
Consistently emphasizes Stanford's highest median post-MBA compensation and Silicon Valley/VC/tech equity upside, arguing the salary premium and network offset its very high tuition to produce top-ranked long-run payback.
Repeatedly points to the world's highest post-graduation compensation and deep Silicon Valley ties (VC, tech, PE, founder equity), which drive long-term wealth creation and quickly offset premium tuition.
Consistently cites the highest post-MBA median total compensation (often above $230K–$250K) and top placement in tech, VC, and PE, which offset high tuition to yield a short payback and the strongest lifetime earnings uplift.
Acknowledges strong compensation potential and entrepreneurial access but stresses that high cost and forgone earnings make its financial ROI less consistently compelling than lower-cost programs.
Highlights extraordinary long-term upside via tech, VC, and entrepreneurship, while noting that high costs and uncertain near-term entrepreneurial outcomes make its measurable ROI less predictable.
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.
gsb.stanford.edu
rankings.ft.com
no URL recalled
gsb.stanford.edu
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.
INSEAD lands at a median rank of 2 (Q1 2, Q3 2) across 13 ranked answers from 6 models, placing it consistently near the top of the field. Agreement is strong at the upper end: gpt-5.6-luna, gpt-5.6-sol, and gpt-5.6-terra all rank it first (each median 1), and gemini-3.7-flash and kimi-k3 place it second (each median 2). The main dispersion comes from claude-opus-5, whose median of 3.5 (Q1 2.75, Q3 4) reflects a more qualified view. The dominant theme across every model is the accelerated 10-month, one-year format, which cuts forgone salary and living costs roughly in half versus two-year U.S. programs and produces one of the fastest payback periods among elite schools. This is reinforced by consistent references to strong global consulting and corporate placement, particularly MBB, across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
The recalled sources cluster around the same ranking and placement authorities: the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking appears under nearly every model, alongside INSEAD's own Employment Statistics and Employment Report, with Poets&Quants, Forbes, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Economist supporting the ROI and placement themes. Claude-opus-5's lower placement stems from the trade-offs it foregrounds — the compressed timeline limiting internships and access to U.S. finance recruiting — rather than any disagreement on the core cost advantage.
INSEAD's one-year format is the core of its ROI case: you pay one year of tuition and forfeit only one year of salary, cutting total cost dramatically versus two-year US programs. — kimi-k3
The 10-month format cuts opportunity cost roughly in half compared with two-year US programs while still delivering elite consulting placement (MBB hires a large share of each class). — claude-opus-5
The roughly 10-month format reduces lost salary and living costs while its international network and mobility benefit candidates in consulting, finance, or multinational careers.
The accelerated 10-month format minimizes tuition and lost earnings while providing global employer access, producing strong near-term ROI for internationally oriented candidates.
The one-year format reduces forgone salary and living costs while its global recruiting network supports post-MBA mobility, making it a strong ROI choice for international careers.
The intensive 10-month format halves opportunity cost and forgone earnings versus two-year programs, producing one of the fastest payback periods, supported by strong global consulting and corporate placement.
The one-year format is the core ROI advantage, halving total cost by sacrificing only one year of tuition and salary, with strong MBB placement across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East yielding payback periods that beat US peers.
The 10-12 month format cuts tuition and forgone salary roughly in half, driving fast payback and top FT/Forbes ROI rankings, aided by strong MBB consulting placement, though the compressed timeline limits internships and US finance recruiting access.
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.
insead.edu
rankings.ft.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.
also named Harvard, Harvard University
Harvard Business School lands at a median rank of 3 (Q1 2.25, Q3 3.75) across 14 ranked answers from 5 models, placing it firmly in the upper tier but not at the summit. Model-level positioning spreads notably: claude-opus-5 is the most favorable at median rank 2 (Q1 2, Q3 2.25), gemini-3.7-flash and kimi-k3 sit at median 3 and 3.5 respectively, while gpt-5.6-sol places it at 4 and gpt-5.6-terra at 5. The common thread across all five is agreement on the underlying strengths — elite median compensation (cited near $175K base), the most powerful global alumni network, and generous need-based financial aid — recalled through sources such as the Harvard Business School Employment Data pages, the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking, U.S. News Best Business Schools, and Bloomberg Businessweek Best B-Schools.
The disagreement centers not on quality but on the arithmetic of ROI, where high total cost and two-year opportunity cost weigh against near-term payback. Models ranking HBS lower emphasize this cost drag and, in kimi-k3's case, the diluting effect of a large class size, while higher-ranking models offset the sticker price against fellowships and long-run career compounding. That tension explains why several models place it a notch behind Stanford despite comparable earnings.
HBS combines top-tier median compensation (~$175K base plus bonuses) with arguably the most powerful global alumni network, which compounds earnings over a career. — claude-opus-5
I rank it fourth because its large total cost and two-year opportunity cost can lengthen payback, particularly for candidates who already have lucrative careers or receive limited aid. — gpt-5.6-sol
HBS is consistently described as combining top-tier median compensation with the most powerful global alumni network and generous need-based fellowships that lower effective cost, while ranking slightly behind Stanford on pure ROI math due to high full price.
HBS is portrayed as pairing immense global brand prestige and a vast alumni network with generous need-based financial aid, producing top-tier compensation and strong lifetime compounding returns in fields like private equity and consulting.
HBS delivers elite compensation and arguably the strongest lifetime brand equity and network, but ranks behind peers like Stanford because its very high cost and large class size make near-term salary-to-cost payback slightly less efficient.
HBS offers extraordinary brand value and long-term career optionality, but is ranked lower because high total cost and two-year opportunity cost can lengthen payback, especially with limited aid.
HBS provides enormous long-term upside through employer access and alumni network, but high total cost and lost earnings make near-term payback less certain, making it most compelling for those who leverage the network for leadership or venture-building.
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.
hbs.edu
hbs.edu
hbs.edu
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.
also named BYU Marriott, Brigham Young University, Brigham Young University Marriott School of Business
BYU Marriott School of Business lands at a median rank of 4 (Q1 1, Q3 5) across 13 ranked answers from 6 models, a spread that reflects genuine disagreement rather than consensus. The gpt-5.6 family clusters at the top—gpt-5.6-luna and gpt-5.6-terra both at median rank 1, gpt-5.6-sol at median rank 2—while claude-opus-5, gemini-3.7-flash, and kimi-k3 all settle at median rank 5. The unifying theme is that Marriott is a value or payback pick: very low tuition paired with solid six-figure placements produces a strong salary-to-cost ratio, with the reduced rate for LDS members frequently cited. The divergence in placement stems from how each model weighs that against a caveat all of them acknowledge—a narrower national and global recruiting footprint and a lower top-end earnings ceiling than elite M7 schools.
The models that rank it highest frame the low cost and access to consulting, technology, and finance recruiting as decisive, subject to fit around the faith-based environment and geographic concentration; those recalling institutional sources such as BYU Marriott MBA Tuition and the BYU Marriott MBA Employment Report sit under this theme. The models that place it fifth accept the same ROI logic but treat the capped ceiling as a reason to rank it below prestige programs, leaning on ROI-focused sources like Forbes Best Business Schools and Poets&Quants alongside U.S. News Best Business Schools.
BYU Marriott is one of the strongest value choices because its tuition is unusually low for a nationally recognized full-time MBA, while graduates still access consulting, technology, and finance recruiting. — gpt-5.6-luna
It ranks fifth here only because its ceiling for ultra-high-pa… — kimi-k3
Highlights low tuition alongside solid consulting, tech, and finance recruiting, while repeatedly noting the ROI is most compelling for students comfortable with its faith-based environment and geographic/eligibility constraints.
Stresses an unusually favorable salary-to-cost payback from low tuition and strong outcomes, while emphasizing fit—its LDS affiliation, location, and recruiting base align best with certain candidates.
Points to strong placement and compensation at substantially lower cost, especially for students eligible for the reduced tuition, with the caveat that its culture and network may not suit everyone.
Consistently frames BYU Marriott as the classic value/payback pick: very low tuition (especially for LDS members) paired with strong six-figure placements, offset by a narrower national/global recruiting footprint and lower earnings ceiling than M7 schools.
Emphasizes an exceptionally favorable salary-to-debt ratio, with very low tuition combined with competitive placements at consulting, tech, and accounting firms.
Describes it as a top ROI standout on a salary-to-debt basis due to heavily subsidized tuition and solid six-figure placements, ranked slightly lower only because its recruiting network and top-end salary ceiling are narrower than elite schools.
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.
marriott.byu.edu
marriott.byu.edu
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.
also named The Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania), The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton, University of Pennsylvania - Wharton, University of Pennsylvania – Wharton School
The Wharton School lands at a median rank of 3.5 (Q1 3, Q3 4) across 14 ranked answers from 5 models, placing it firmly in the upper tier without reaching the top spot. Agreement is fairly tight through the middle of the distribution: claude-opus-5, gpt-5.6-sol, and kimi-k3 all settle at a median of 3, while gemini-3.7-flash lands at 4 and gpt-5.6-luna sits lowest at 5. The consistent theme is Wharton's finance pipeline — private equity, investment banking, hedge funds, and consulting — paired with compensation the models describe as on par with HBS and Stanford. That case rests on career-outcome and ranking sources including the Wharton MBA Career Report and Career Statistics, Poets&Quants, the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking, U.S. News, Forbes, and Bloomberg Businessweek.
The disagreement is almost entirely about cost rather than earning power. The models that rank Wharton highest still flag that its full sticker tuition and Philadelphia living costs trim the ROI advantage, while gemini-3.7-flash frames those costs as rapidly amortized by signing bonuses and gpt-5.6-luna pushes it down to fifth on the grounds that the premium is easiest to justify only for those targeting the industries that reward the brand most.
Its large class and global alumni base give broad access to high-paying roles across industries. Costs are among the highest, which trims the ROI advantage relative to lower-tuition options. — claude-opus-5
I rank it fifth on value because its total cost is very high and its premium is easiest to justify for applicants targeting industries and employers that reward the brand particularly strongly. — gpt-5.6-luna
Wharton is framed as delivering top-tier finance placement (PE, banking, hedge funds) with compensation on par with HBS and Stanford, though its high full tuition slightly dilutes ROI relative to lower-cost or better-aid options.
Wharton is portrayed as offering exceptional compensation and access to finance/consulting/leadership roles plus a strong alumni network, with high tuition and costs making ROI dependable mainly for those making high-paying transitions.
Wharton is credited with elite finance/consulting compensation and strong lifetime earnings, but ranked just below Stanford and HBS because its high tuition, larger class size, and dependence on cyclical finance hiring slightly lengthen payback.
Wharton is consistently described as a dominant finance/banking/PE pipeline whose high compensation and signing bonuses rapidly amortize tuition debt, supported by its alumni network and quantitative reputation.
Wharton is seen as an elite brand for finance, consulting, and leadership pay, but ranked lower on value because its very high cost is best justified for applicants targeting industries that reward the brand most.
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.
usnews.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.
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.