\n| Quality of Presence<\/td>\n | 9\/20<\/td>\n | 12\/20<\/td>\n | 13\/20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Brand Exposure<\/td>\n | 6\/10<\/td>\n | 4\/10<\/td>\n | 1\/10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n Fourteen points separate the highest score from the lowest. Translated into a qualitative assessment, this translates to \u201con the right track\u201d for OpenAI and Perplexity, and \u201cvery good\u201d for Gemini.<\/p>\n Now, look at the last row of the table. It reveals something counterintuitive that the overall score completely masks.<\/p>\n Gemini gives noCRM its highest sentiment score, 35 out of 40, and its lowest mention rate, 1 out of 10. OpenAI does exactly the opposite: the lowest sentiment score in the panel, 27 out of 40, but the highest mention rate, 6 out of 10. In other words, ChatGPT mentions noCRM relatively often but speaks less favorably of it, while Gemini speaks very highly of it but almost never highlights it over its competitors.<\/p>\n <\/i>Salesdorado\u2019s take<\/span>
\nThis is the most useful insight in the entire report, and you have to dig for it. A high sentiment score combined with low exposure means \u201cliked but invisible\u201d: the focus should be on increasing visibility in comparative content and category pages. A low sentiment score combined with adequate exposure means \u201cvisible but poorly communicated\u201d: the focus here is on the sources that drive that sentiment\u2014customer reviews, quantified use cases, press coverage, etc. Two opposing diagnoses, two opposing action plans.<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/salesdorado.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/avis-hubspot-aeo-grader-obtenir-rapport-complet-scaled.png\") <\/p>\n
|
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/salesdorado.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/avis-hubspot-aeo-grader-formulaire-scaled.png\")
<\/p>\n