AI Visibility
measured37/100
Emerging · in UI/UX Design
counts brand mentions in AI answers, not source citations
AEO Readiness
fundamentals1/100
Weak fundamentals
Avg Prompt Score
5
across 537 prompts
AI Share of Voice
5%
across 537 prompts
Critical Issues
3
critical + high
How AI Visibility breaks down
in UI/UX Design
Composite = 50% coverage + 30% engine breadth + 20% position, measured in the brand's strongest category. Position and citation depth join the score once the aggregation pipeline captures them. This is the measured Visibility score — separate from AEO Readiness, which scores fundamentals.
Per-stage performance
Cited rate · share of voice · engine consensus · sentiment, broken out by buyer-journey stage. Sentiment is the net positive−negative skew across engines that cited the brand at this stage.
Categories Material is visible in
2Executive summary
material.io is highly likely to be cited by AI engines for design-system and UI-component documentation queries (strong third-party and community visibility), but it is weak for B2B-style evaluation/conversion patterns like pricing and structured “software selection” comparisons. The single highest-ROI fix is to add/expand crawlable, LLM-readable structured Q&A (FAQPage) and “what it is / who it’s for / how to use” blocks that directly answer evaluation-style prompts (e.g., alternatives, fit, and integration/workflow questions).
Based on audit of material.io · Oct 9, 2026