Which sources do ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot and Google AI Overviews use when looking for information about consultants, freelancers and agencies in Romania? And how important is LinkedIn in this process?
For years, professional online visibility has been associated primarily with Google rankings, a well-optimised website, a complete LinkedIn profile and a presence in relevant publications or directories.
But the way people search for information is changing.
Instead of searching for “management consultant Romania” or “digital marketing agency Bucharest”, users can ask an AI system directly:
“Who are the best management consultants in Romania?”
“Which digital marketing agencies in Romania would you recommend?”
“Is X a relevant specialist in this field?”
In this new ecosystem, the question is no longer simply whether a professional appears in search engine results. What matters is whether AI can identify, understand, validate and include that professional in a relevant answer.
To explore this shift, I conducted the Professional AI Visibility Index Romania 2026, an exploratory comparative study examining how six AI platforms construct a professional profile of consultants, freelancers and agencies in Romania.
Professional AI Visibility Index Romania 2026: The Study at a Glance
The research analysed:
- 15 anonymised entities
- 6 AI platforms
- 45 standardised prompts
- 270 AI responses
- Data collected manually between July 21 and 27, 2026
Three categories of entities were included: 5 consultants, 5 freelancers and 5 agencies, operating in fields such as Digital Marketing, SEO & Content Marketing, Business Coaching, IT, Web Development and other professional services.
The platforms analysed were:
ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot and Google AI Overviews.
The objective was not to identify the “best” professional or create a commercial ranking of the participants. Instead, the study examined which information and sources AI systems use when identifying, describing, validating or recommending professionals and agencies.
Why Does AI Search Matter in Romania?
AI Search can no longer be treated simply as an experimental trend.
The data analysed for the Romanian market indicates significant use of conversational AI tools. In July 2026, ChatGPT dominated Romania’s AI chatbot segment, with approximately 82% market share, according to the StatCounter data used in the report.
During the same period, ChatGPT.com ranked among Romania’s most visited websites, according to the Semrush data analysed for the study.
These figures provide context for an important question for professionals and businesses:
What happens when a potential client stops asking Google whom to choose and starts asking an AI system directly?
From SEO to AI Visibility
SEO remains important. Websites, content, authority and technical accessibility do not disappear with the emergence of AI Search.
But another layer of visibility is emerging.
In traditional search engines, the objective is largely to achieve visibility in search results.
In AI Search, a system can synthesise information from multiple sources and construct a representation of a person or organisation.
This is where AI Visibility comes in: the extent to which an entity can be identified, understood, considered relevant and presented by AI systems in their answers.
The study highlights an important distinction between these levels.
Being identified by AI is not the same as being recommended by AI.
How I Tested AI Visibility
Three types of tests were conducted for each of the 15 entities.
1. Discovery — Can AI Find You?
The first test examined whether AI could identify an entity spontaneously when given a generic recommendation request.
Examples included:
“Recommend five relevant consultants in Romania specialising in [field].”
Or:
“Recommend five [field] agencies in Romania.”
The entity’s name was not provided.
The test essentially measured spontaneous discovery.
2. Identity — Does AI Know Who You Are?
In the second test, the entity’s name was explicitly provided.
For example:
“Who is [Name], and what do they do professionally?”
Or:
“What is [Agency Name], and what services does it offer?”
The objective was to observe how accurately AI could reconstruct a professional identity based on publicly available information.
3. Validation — Is There Enough Evidence?
The third test went a step further:
“Is [Name] a relevant consultant in field X?”
Or:
“Is [Agency Name] a relevant choice for service X?”
Here, I examined not only whether the entity was identified, but also which sources and information were used to validate its expertise and relevance.
These three stages formed the central model of the study:
Discovery → Identity → Validation
Or, more simply:
Can AI find you? → Does AI know who you are? → Does AI have enough evidence to trust you?
The Website Remains the Most Important Source
One of the clearest findings of the study concerns the role of the official website.
Across the 270 responses analysed, the official website was the first source cited in 33% of cases and the dominant source in 43% of responses.
Other leading source categories included:
- Online press — 20%
- LinkedIn — 18.9%
- Directories and professional platforms — 12.6%
The website and LinkedIn play different roles.
LinkedIn Matters, but It Is Not Enough
When looking only at cases where LinkedIn was the first source, it appeared in 18.9% of responses.
However, when all LinkedIn mentions are considered, including secondary sources, its share rises to 40.4%.
This reveals one of the study’s most interesting distinctions.
LinkedIn appears much more frequently when AI needs to answer the question:
“Who is this person?”
In the Identity tests, LinkedIn was mentioned or cited in 52.2% of responses.
In Validation, the figure was 51.1%.
In Discovery, however, LinkedIn appeared in only 18.9% of cases.
In other words, the findings suggest that LinkedIn can play an important role in confirming professional identity and validating expertise, but it does not guarantee spontaneous discovery.
ChatGPT Does Not Use Sources in the Same Way as Gemini or Copilot
Another important finding is that the AI platforms did not behave identically.
Within the sample analysed, LinkedIn was the first source in:
- ChatGPT — 40% of responses
- Google AI Overviews — 17.8%
- Perplexity — 28.9%
- Claude — 24.4%
- Gemini — 0%
- Copilot — 2.2%
By comparison, the official website was the first source in:
- ChatGPT — 33.3%
- Google AI Overviews — 40%
- Perplexity — 24.4%
- Gemini — 24.4%
- Claude — 26.7%
- Copilot — 46.7%
These findings do not mean that a platform permanently “prefers” one source over another. They reflect the behaviour observed within this sample and during the period analysed.
Nevertheless, the practical implication is important:
AI Visibility should not be treated as a single, universal metric.
An entity may have strong visibility in one system and considerably lower visibility in another.
A Key Finding: AI Does Not Spontaneously Recommend Everyone
Perhaps the most interesting finding emerges when comparing the three types of tests.
In Discovery, when AI received a generic request such as:
“Recommend five consultants, freelancers or agencies in Romania.”
The entities in the sample appeared in only 16.7% of responses.
In Identity, when the name was explicitly provided, the appearance rate rose to 86.7%.
In Validation, it reached 98.9%.
The difference is substantial.
It shows that:
Being known by AI and being recommended spontaneously by AI are two different things.
When a user enters a person’s name, AI is much more likely to identify that person.
But when a user asks:
“Who would you recommend?”
The system must select entities from a much broader pool of potential candidates.
In this context, simply having a LinkedIn profile, a website or even a substantial amount of online content does not guarantee inclusion in a generic recommendation.
Freelancers Face an Interesting Challenge
The study also identified differences between the three categories analysed.
The overall AI appearance rates were:
- Agencies — 75.6%
- Consultants — 73.3%
- Freelancers — 53.3%
At the same time, freelancers had the highest relative use of LinkedIn as a source of AI visibility, with 56.7% mentions.
This is an interesting result. LinkedIn appears to play a more significant role for freelancers who may not benefit from the same volume of external sources as an agency or a consultant with a stronger media presence.
However, a strong LinkedIn presence does not fully compensate for the absence of a broader digital ecosystem.
Website + LinkedIn + Press: The Emerging Model
Based on the 270 responses, I identified a pattern that can be summarised as follows.
LinkedIn = “Who You Are”
LinkedIn provides information about professional identity: role, experience, positioning and activity.
It is particularly relevant during the Identity and Validation stages.
Website = “What You Do”
A website provides information about services, offerings, expertise, portfolios and professional activities.
It was the most frequently cited source category overall and plays an important role in Discovery.
Press = “Why You Matter”
Articles, interviews and editorial coverage provide external signals of authority.
Unlike a website, which presents information about an entity from its own perspective, press coverage can provide third-party sources that support its relevance and expertise.
This leads to a more complex model than simply “optimise your LinkedIn profile for AI”:
Website + LinkedIn + Press + Other Relevant Sources
Together, these sources form an ecosystem of signals that can help AI build a more complete picture of a professional or organisation.
AI Visibility Score: Another Way to Measure Visibility
To summarise results at the entity level, the study introduces the AI Visibility Score, a composite indicator ranging from 0 to 100.
The score combines:
- Appearance rate in AI responses — 40%
- LinkedIn mentions — 20%
- Website mentions — 20%
- Diversity of additional sources — 10%
- Diversity of information types extracted by AI — 10%
Within the sample analysed, the highest score was achieved by entity C3, a consultant in Business Coaching, with a score of 75.3.
The study also introduces the LinkedIn AI Visibility Index, which specifically measures LinkedIn’s contribution to an entity’s AI visibility.
The two rankings do not coincide.
And that is precisely what makes this distinction relevant.
High visibility on LinkedIn is not equivalent to high AI Visibility.
Recent Content Matters
Another indicator analysed was the Source Freshness Index, which tracks the age of sources cited by AI.
Of the 165 responses in which the source year could be identified:
- 51.5% had 2026 as their most recent source year.
- 37.6% included sources from the previous one to three years.
- 10.9% included sources more than three years old.
Overall, 89.1% of sources with an identifiable year were no more than three years old.
This finding supports a straightforward practical implication:
Public content should not be created once and then abandoned.
Websites, LinkedIn profiles and editorial coverage need to remain up to date and consistent.
What Do These Findings Mean for AEO and GEO?
The study supports an approach built around three areas.
1. Technical Readiness
AI systems need to be able to find and process information.
This includes a functional website, clear structure, technical SEO and accessibility for relevant crawlers.
2. Entity Authority
Information about a person or company should be consistent across sources.
The website, LinkedIn profile, press coverage and professional directories should not communicate contradictory versions of the same identity.
3. Continuous Adaptation
AI Search is evolving rapidly.
Optimisation should therefore not be treated as a one-off intervention, but as an ongoing monitoring process:
Prompt Research → Audit → Optimisation → Monitoring → Adjustment
What Can Individual Professionals Do?
For consultants and freelancers, several practical actions are worth prioritising.
1. Build a consistent professional identity
Your name, field, services, experience and positioning should be consistent across your website and LinkedIn profile.
2. Do not abandon your website
Even a simple website can provide AI with information that a social profile cannot present as comprehensively: services, portfolio, case studies, expertise and professional context.
3. Optimise LinkedIn for clarity, not just for recruiters
Your profile should explicitly communicate who you are, what you do, whom you serve and where your expertise lies.
4. Build external authority
Interviews, articles, guest posts and coverage in relevant publications can provide independent sources of validation.
5. Monitor what AI says about you
Do not assume the information is automatically correct.
Regularly check how ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot and Google AI Overviews describe you.
What About Agencies?
For agencies, the website becomes even more important.
A clear structure covering services, case studies, portfolio, team and dedicated service pages can provide AI with a broader understanding of the organisation.
At the same time, the company’s LinkedIn page and the profiles of its team members can play complementary roles.
Coverage in business and industry publications can further contribute to the brand’s external reputation.
The Study’s Conclusion: AI Visibility Is an Ecosystem
Perhaps the most important conclusion of the Professional AI Visibility Index Romania 2026 is that no single source solves the AI Visibility challenge.
LinkedIn alone is not enough.
A website alone is not enough.
SEO alone is not enough.
And press coverage alone is not enough.
AI systems combine information from different sources to build a representation of a person or organisation.
That is why the right question is not simply:
“Am I visible in AI?”
It is:
“What picture of me can AI construct from the information available online?”
And then:
“Is that picture accurate, consistent and sufficiently supported for AI to consider me relevant when someone asks for a recommendation?”
This is the difference between simply having an online presence and building AI Visibility.
Download the Full Report
The Professional AI Visibility Index Romania 2026 is an exploratory study based on 15 entities, six AI platforms, 45 prompts and 270 AI responses, with data collected between July 21 and 27, 2026.
The report summary covers the methodology, comparative platform findings, LinkedIn’s role, differences between consultants, freelancers and agencies, the AI Visibility Score and LinkedIn AI Visibility Index, cited-source analysis and the AEO/GEO recommendations arising from the research.
Download Professional AI Visibility Index Romania 2026 for Free!
About the Study
The Professional AI Visibility Index Romania 2026 is an exploratory study conducted by Nicoleta Ion, AI Visibility, AEO & GEO Consultant and Digital Marketing & Online Communication Specialist.
The study does not aim to provide a universal ranking of professionals or generalise the behaviour of all AI systems. Its findings should be interpreted in the context of the sample, methodology and data collection period.
Research conducted: July 21–27, 2026.
About Nicoleta Ion
Nicoleta Ion is an AI Visibility, AEO & GEO Consultant and Digital Marketing & Online Communication Specialist with over 10 years of experience in communication, online marketing and SEO.
Her areas of focus include AI Search, AI Visibility, Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), LinkedIn AI Visibility, Content Strategy and SEO.
Website: nicoletaion.com