How to get your software onto best-of lists AI cites

Yes, publish useful comparisons on your own site as well as earning a place on other publishers’ lists. Ahrefs found ChatGPT citing both Asana’s own comparison and a Zapier list. Your own pages can contribute; make them useful enough for a buyer to choose.

Why are best-of lists worth checking?

Best-of blog lists made up 43.8% of source links in the Ahrefs study. It covered 750 prompts about software, products and agencies. That share belongs to this sample, not every ChatGPT answer.

In that study, brands higher on other publishers’ lists appeared more often in answers. The link is worth investigating, but it does not prove that moving up a list caused the recommendation.

Which lists should you approach?

Open the cited pages and check the product category. Ahrefs recommends checking that competitors appear in the right context, because some citations are only loosely relevant.

We would keep a note of who each list helps, where your product fits and what the writer needs to test. Skip lists for a different buyer, even when a competitor appears.

How do we find more relevant publishers?

Look beyond the lists that already name your closest rival. We would also search for similar products serving the same buyer, then look for useful publishers that have not yet compared the category. Offer a reason to cover it, backed by product access and evidence.

Respona lists campaign templates for listicle outreach and competitor mentions. Tools like this can help organise prospecting. Our advice is to check each publisher’s audience and send a relevant pitch, rather than a mass request to be added.

What should you send the writer?

Give the writer access to test your product. Ahrefs recommends a demo or trial, and suggests proposing a new comparison when a relevant publisher has not written one.

Our suggested pitch is simple: explain the buyer problem your product suits, show the evidence and offer access to test it. Ask for consideration, leaving the verdict to the writer.

Google asks review writers to show experience, explain product differences and cover drawbacks as well as benefits. Prepare evidence that helps a writer do that. These are Google’s review guidelines, not ChatGPT’s rules.

Open full-size screenshot in a new tab

Select the screenshot to enlarge it.

Evidence of experience

The guidance asks writers to support a review with material from their own experience.

Product differences

Help a writer check what sets your product apart.

Scope

This is Google’s review guidance, not proof that ChatGPT will cite a page.

Source: Google Search Central: write high quality reviews

Should you publish your own comparison?

Yes. Start with a comparison you can write from experience. Explain who each option suits, the trade-offs and when your product is the wrong choice. State clearly that you sell one of the products. We would treat this as part of your content plan, not wait for another publisher to tell your story.

Google’s guidance is a useful quality standard, but it does not decide what every AI assistant will cite. The Ahrefs study observed self-promotional lists among ChatGPT’s sources. That supports testing the format, not assuming that putting yourself first will win recommendations.

A comparison should help the reader choose without needing another article. Google says a ranked list needs enough detail to stand alone, with first-hand evidence for calling a product best.

Ahrefs says it makes clear when it recommends its own product and links to alternatives so readers can assess them.

How should you judge the result?

We suggest recording publisher inclusion separately from what the AI answer says. Check whether the list is cited, whether your product is named and whether it is recommended for the buyer’s task. Keep the answer and its source link together.

Use that record to choose the next job. We would improve the evidence a writer can use, then check what changed. Getting onto the list is a step worth measuring, not the whole result.