Which sources do AI assistants cite about damage restoration companies in Sydney?

Measured 2026-09-07 · First collection

The top 3 cited sources, by engine

Sample: 8 prompts, responses collected 2026-09-07 to 2026-09-07 (8 from ChatGPT, 8 from Perplexity, 7 from Google AI Overviews). Google AI Overviews has a lower response count because some prompts returned no AI Overview, and those are excluded from that engine's denominator. Excluded from citation counts: 33 prompts naming a specific business, per the TOP Score rules, and 157 prompts that stated no location, per the method. Percentages are the share of that engine's responses containing at least one citation of the domain. Ties: Perplexity's third place is shared at 4 citations by mouldremovalssydney.com.au, nanotise.com.au and restorationpros.com.au; Google AI Overviews' second place is shared at 3 by airsafe.net.au, confluence-enviro.com.au and nanotise.com.au.

What the data says

The sample here is small, so read it as a first sounding. The pattern it suggests is distinctive: the engines cite the diagnostic layer first, air and mould testing consultancies like Airsafe, and marketplaces like Airtasker, before the companies that actually do the restoration work. Perplexity trusts the testers, Google leans on health and safety consultants, and only ChatGPT puts a restorer, Restoration Pros, at the top. For restoration companies the read is direct: the engines want evidence-shaped content about assessment and safety, and whoever publishes it gets cited ahead of whoever just lists services.

How to read this page

• 1Citations are not mentions. This page measures which sources the engines link when they answer, not which businesses they name. Who gets named is the TOP Score, and it's measured separately.
• 2Engines disagree, so we never pool them. Each engine is reported on its own row because an average hides a total absence on the engine your buyers actually use.
• 3This is a measurement with a date on it. Models and retrieval change; a source moving between collections has not necessarily done anything. The method, cadence and limits are on the standard page.
• 4Ties are shown alphabetically and single-page sources are named. Where sources tie on citations, the table orders them alphabetically and the tie is stated under it. A domain's count can rest on a single page, often a "best of" listicle, and that concentration is itself part of what this site measures, so where it's true of a listed source we say so. Domains are counted by exact hostname, so government subdomains count separately.