No alert tells a firm when AI answers do not recommend it. The only way to know is to ask the questions and keep the answers.

What we measured

We asked 27 buyer questions, three times each, on four engines, and kept every answer with the passage each recommendation rests on.

The collection covered foreign founders and small companies setting up in Singapore, and overseas companies setting up a Singapore subsidiary, branch or regional company. There were 132 founder answers and 72 expansion answers, making 204 provider answers. Information questions made up the rest of the collection.

The firms were registered before collection. Every answer was classified against a written rule. A firm counted as recommended only when the answer presented it as suitable for the buyer asking.

Every figure below is counted across the four engines. Recommendation figures count how often a firm was recommended, not where it appeared in an answer. These are API measurements under stated settings, with web search switched on, rather than observations of the consumer apps.

The pattern

We registered 61 Singapore corporate services firms before collecting a single answer. 19 of them were not recommended in any of the 204 provider answers. 17 were not named in any of them.

42 of the 61 registered firms were recommended at least once across the 204 provider answers.

In founder answers, 25 of the 61 registered firms were recommended at least once. Sleek was recommended in 120 of 132 founder answers and Osome in 109 of 132.

In expansion answers, 32 of the 61 registered firms were recommended at least once. BoardRoom was recommended in 66 of 72 expansion answers and InCorp, now trading as Ascentium Singapore, in 62 of 72.

The 19 firms are not named here. Each registered firm receives its result privately.

The buyer matters

Being recommended depends on the buyer’s question. Sleek was recommended in 120 of 132 founder answers and in 22 of 72 expansion answers. BoardRoom was recommended in 66 of 72 expansion answers, and to the founder in 5 of 132 founder answers.

8 of the 204 provider answers recommended no firm at all.

No search use was evidenced in the response metadata for 44 of Gemini’s 51 provider-question responses.

The result gives a firm a record of what these answers recommended for each buyer. It does not explain why those recommendations occurred.

What the answers drew on

106 of the 132 founder answers cited at least one source. So did 54 of the 72 expansion answers.

In founder answers, the two websites cited most often were osome.com, in 87 of 132 answers, and sleek.com, in 84. The government registry, acra.gov.sg, was cited in 38.

In expansion answers, boardroomlimited.com was cited in 41 of 72 answers and incorp.asia in 23. The government registry, acra.gov.sg, was cited in 15.

Each website is counted once per answer. Gemini’s sources are counted by the site name Google returns.

No search use was evidenced in the response metadata for 44 of Gemini’s 51 provider-question responses.

The firms’ own websites were among the sources the answers cited most often. This collection does not show that being cited causes a firm to be recommended.

What this does not tell us

This collection does not say why any firm was or was not recommended. The cited websites are part of the answer record. Their presence does not establish a reason for a recommendation.

What this solves for one firm

The AI Brand Intelligence Report runs this measurement for one firm: where the four engines recommend it, for which buyer, who they recommend instead, which websites the answers cite, and what should happen next.

The value is a documented answer to a question a firm otherwise cannot see: what did the answers recommend when asked about this buyer’s needs?

Not being recommended is a finding. Not knowing about it is the problem.

Next week

Edition 4 closes the first AI Visibility Index.

Full Index (free, 10 pages): https://forms.seowebi.com/ai-visibility-index?edition=sg-corporate-services

AI Brand Intelligence Report: https://www.seowebi.com/run-report

AI Visibility Index 1, Singapore corporate services. 324 answers from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude, collected through their APIs on 15 October 2026. 27 buyer questions, each asked three times.

Both are likely to see Sleek and Osome recommended. Beyond those two, their shortlists part ways. On ChatGPT, the firm recommended most often to founders after Sleek and Osome was HeySara. On Claude, it was Rikvin.

Neither founder sees the other’s answer. Each assumes that what they read is what AI says.

Last week we published the first AI Visibility Index: which firms ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude recommend when buyers ask for help with Singapore corporate services. This edition looks at the same 324 answers from another angle. Not who was recommended overall, but how the four engines compare.

What we measured

We asked 27 questions a real buyer might ask, three times each, on each of the four engines. Eleven came from a foreign founder setting up a small company. Six came from an overseas company setting up a Singapore subsidiary, branch or regional company. Ten were information questions. The answers were collected through the engines’ APIs on 15 October 2026, with web search switched on. Every answer was classified against a written rule, and every recommendation is stored with the exact passage it rests on.

That gives 33 founder answers and 18 expansion answers on each engine. Those are the denominators below. Every figure counts how many answers recommended a firm, not where the firm appeared within an answer.

Where the four engines agree

The four engines agree on the founder leaders. Sleek was recommended in at least 28 of 33 founder answers on every engine we measured, and Osome in at least 23 of 33.

The headline founder question shows it most clearly. We asked: “Which company would you recommend to help a foreign founder set up a small business in Singapore?” Each engine answered three times. Sleek was recommended in all three answers on every engine.

They agree on the expansion leaders too. BoardRoom was recommended in at least 15 of 18 expansion answers on every engine, and InCorp, now trading as Ascentium Singapore, in at least 14 of 18.

No search use was evidenced in the response metadata for 44 of Gemini’s 51 provider-question responses.

The leaders also hold when the question is repeated. Across the founder and expansion questions, Sleek was recommended in all three runs for 46 of the 49 question and engine pairs where it was recommended at least once.

Look only at the leaders, and the four engines look like one.

Where they part ways

Below the leaders, the engines part ways. After Sleek and Osome, the firm recommended most often to founders was HeySara on ChatGPT (15 of 33), HeySara and Statrys on Perplexity (15 of 33 each), Rikvin on Gemini (21 of 33) and Rikvin on Claude (22 of 33).

Two firms show how large the difference can be. Rikvin was recommended in 22 of 33 founder answers on Claude and 21 of 33 on Gemini, but in 3 of 33 on ChatGPT. HeySara was recommended in 15 of 33 founder answers on ChatGPT and 15 of 33 on Perplexity, but in 2 of 33 on Gemini.

For a founder, whether those names appeared depended heavily on which engine they asked.

Each engine is reported separately. This collection does not isolate the cause of the differences. No search use was evidenced in the response metadata for 44 of Gemini’s 51 provider-question responses.

Expanding companies: the same pattern

The expansion answers follow the same shape. The leaders hold, and the firms below them move.

TMF Group was recommended in 17 of 18 expansion answers on Gemini and 15 of 18 on ChatGPT, but in 2 of 18 on Claude. Vistra was recommended in all 18 expansion answers on Gemini, and in 6 of 18 on Perplexity.

Some engines spread their recommendations wider than others. On Gemini, five of the 61 registered firms were each recommended in at least 14 of 18 expansion answers. On Perplexity and on Claude, two were.

Perplexity recommended Deloitte Singapore in 9 of 18 expansion answers and PwC Singapore in 8 of 18. No other engine recommended either firm in more than 4 of 18.

Each engine is reported separately. This collection does not isolate the cause of the differences. No search use was evidenced in the response metadata for 44 of Gemini’s 51 provider-question responses.

AI sorts firms by buyer

One more pattern appears in the founder answers. AI does not only name firms. It sorts them by buyer.

In founder answers, BoardRoom was recommended to the founder in 5 of 132, and recommended for a different buyer, such as a larger or more complex set-up, in 30 more. The same sorting applies to Hawksford: recommended to the founder in 13 of 132 founder answers, and for a different buyer in 29 more. And to InCorp (Ascentium Singapore): recommended to the founder in 31 of 132 founder answers, and for a different buyer in 34 more.

These firms were not left out of founder answers. The answers pointed them at someone else. Being recommended for a different buyer is not the same as being recommended to the buyer who asked.

What this does not tell us

We do not know why the engines differ. They could differ for several reasons, and this collection was not designed to separate them. No engine is the right one. Each is a door a real buyer uses.

A question for firms that sell in Singapore

If you have looked at one engine, you have seen one of four answers. Which AI does your buyer use?

One engine’s answer is not the market’s answer.

Next week

Edition 3 looks at what did not appear: the patterns among the registered firms that were not recommended in any answer, and the websites the answers cited most.

Get the full Index (10 pages, free): https://forms.seowebi.com/ai-visibility-index?edition=sg-corporate-services

If you want the same measurement for your own firm, the AI Brand Intelligence Report is here: https://www.seowebi.com/run-report

AI Visibility Index 1, Singapore corporate services. 324 answers from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude, collected through their APIs on 15 October 2026. 27 buyer questions, each asked three times.

We asked: ‘Which company would you recommend to help a foreign founder set up a small business in Singapore?’ Twelve answers came back, three from each engine. Sleek was recommended in all 12, and Osome in 11.

That is where our first AI Visibility Index begins: with a question a founder might ask and the names that came back. Sleek and Osome were repeatedly recommended for founders. For an overseas company asking about a Singapore subsidiary or regional company, BoardRoom and InCorp were the recurring names.

What we measured

We used 27 buyer questions: 11 founder provider questions, 6 expansion provider questions and 10 information questions. Each was asked three times on ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude. We collected the answers through their APIs on 15 October 2026, with web search switched on in the settings. A founder here means a foreign founder or small company setting up in Singapore. An expansion buyer is an overseas company setting up a Singapore subsidiary, branch or regional company.

We registered 61 providers before collection. Every answer was classified against a written rule, and every recommendation is stored with its supporting passage. A firm counts as recommended when the answer presents it as suitable for the buyer asking. The founder and expansion questions are kept separate throughout the findings, so a reader can follow the question from the company asking it to the providers recommended in response.

AI Visibility Index 1, Singapore corporate services. 324 answers from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude, collected through their APIs on 15 October 2026. 27 buyer questions, each asked three times.

The founder answers

Sleek was recommended in 120 of 132 founder answers in this sample.

Osome was recommended in 109 of 132 founder answers in this sample.

The founder questions cover a foreign founder or small company getting established in Singapore. Across those questions, Sleek and Osome came back repeatedly. You can see that in the combined figures above and in the founder table below.

Sleek was recommended in at least 28 of 33 founder answers on every engine we measured.

After Sleek and Osome there is a large gap. Rikvin was next, recommended in 59 of 132 founder answers.

Founder answers recommending each provider, out of 33 per engine and 132 combined.

Each engine counts equally. The combined sample is not weighted by usage and is not a ranking.

No search use was evidenced in the response metadata for 44 of Gemini’s 51 provider-question responses.

In the next part of the series, we will examine the engines in more detail. This week, the focus is the recommendations for founders and companies entering Singapore.

Expanding companies

Now picture the other question: an overseas company is establishing a Singapore subsidiary, branch or regional company. That is the expansion buyer in this Index. Keeping that group separate lets us ask whom the answers recommended for the company entering Singapore.

BoardRoom was recommended in 66 of 72 answers about setting up a Singapore subsidiary or regional company.

InCorp, now trading as Ascentium Singapore, was recommended in 62 of 72 of those answers.

Vistra, Hawksford and TMF Group followed, each recommended in 40 to 46 of 72 answers.

BoardRoom and InCorp recur in those expansion answers, just as Sleek and Osome recur in the founder answers. A provider reading the Index can begin with the customers it serves, then look at the recommendations attached to those questions. The full question is there to read alongside each result.

The question that makes the contrast clear

Return to the founder opening ChatGPT. Their question asks for someone to help a foreign founder set up a small business in Singapore. In that part of the measurement, Sleek and Osome came back repeatedly.

Then consider the expansion question:

We asked: ‘Recommend a corporate services provider for a regional holding company in Singapore.’ BoardRoom was recommended in all 12 answers.

One asks about a foreign founder’s small business. The other asks about a regional holding company. Both belong to Singapore corporate services, and each gives the answer a particular task: recommend a suitable provider for the company described.

If you provide these services

You may work with founders getting started, or with overseas companies establishing a Singapore operation. When the buyer you want to reach asks for help, which firms are recommended, and what does the answer say about yours?

What comes next

This first week starts with the founder and expansion findings. We will then look at how the engines differ, which firms are absent from the measured recommendations, and which sources the answers cite. The full Index gives you the questions, figures and method to follow as the series unfolds.

Next month, the Index will cover international schools.

Get the full Index (10 pages, free): https://forms.seowebi.com/ai-visibility-index?edition=sg-corporate-services

For a separate look at your company, see the AI Brand Intelligence Report™: https://www.seowebi.com/run-report

Method note

AI Visibility Index 1, Singapore corporate services. 324 answers from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude, collected through their APIs on 15 October 2026. 27 buyer questions, each asked three times.

No search use was evidenced in the response metadata for 44 of Gemini’s 51 provider-question responses.

Does it describe your business accurately? Does it cite your website, or rely on someone else’s account of what you do? And when someone asks for a recommendation without mentioning your name, does your company come up?

These questions are closely related. Each tells us something different about how AI represents your business.

I am Cornelius Alfonso, founder of SEOWEBI. My work focuses on AI Brand Intelligence: measuring how AI systems represent, cite and recommend companies compared with their competitors. I then interpret what those findings mean for the people responsible for those businesses.

This newsletter is for marketing and business leaders who want to understand that picture and make informed decisions. I want to make the findings easy to follow, with enough context for you to judge what they mean for your business.

A useful place to start is with two questions:

“What does this company do?”

“Which company should I consider for this particular need?”

The first asks AI to describe a company you have already named. The second asks it to help choose a provider. AI could describe your business accurately in the first answer and leave it out of the second.

Take a hypothetical accounting firm. AI might correctly describe its services, location and customers. That gives us useful information about how the firm is represented.

But does the firm appear when someone asks for an accountant with experience supporting a particular type of business? That requires a separate test.

This distinction matters because the questions we ask determine what we can learn. If we only ask about a company by name, we have not examined whether it appears when someone is choosing a provider.

We need to look just as carefully at citations. A link to your website shows that it was cited in that answer. It does not automatically mean your company was recommended. The same applies when a competitor appears: was it recommended, compared with another business, or simply mentioned?

At SEOWEBI, the AI Brand Intelligence Report™ establishes a baseline. It examines how a company is represented, where it is recommended or overlooked against named competitors, and what the evidence supports as a next priority. Subsequent monitoring looks at what changes against that baseline.

The purpose is practical: to help leaders decide what deserves attention and what needs further investigation.

Here, I will share measured observations, competitor comparisons and the questions behind the findings. I will examine what AI answers say, which sources they cite, and how those answers relate to the buying situation being tested.

I will also explore what this means for brand and commercial decisions. A factual error, an unclear description and an absence from a recommendation each raise different questions. Understanding which situation we are dealing with helps us decide what to investigate before making changes.

You should be able to assess the evidence for yourself. When I share findings, I will explain what was asked, which AI system answered, when it was tested and whether the test was repeated. I will make clear what I observed, how I interpret it and what remains uncertain.

A single response gives us an observation. It is not enough to support a general conclusion. An AI recommendation is not an independent assessment of a company’s quality. And a change in an answer does not, by itself, prove that a particular action caused it.

My aim is to help you ask better questions about how AI represents your business, understand the answers and decide what is worth investigating next.

What would you most like to understand about how AI represents your company?

Let me know in the comments. Subscribe to receive future articles on AI Brand Intelligence.

Subscribe now