Highlights
- The dataset: This report draws on over 220,000 AI source citations, collected with prompts specific to the accounting and audit industry. The underlying AI responses, from four AI models, were gathered in 12 countries throughout Q2 2026.
- clutch.co is the most broadly cited domain: the single most-cited for Grok and Google AI Overview, and in more Microsoft Copilot answers than any other, a B2B services directory, not an accounting authority.
- Grok is the UGC model: 19% of its citations are from user-generated domains (Reddit, LinkedIn, Instagram), double ChatGPT's and Microsoft Copilot's rate.
- 61% of Google AI Overview's citations are from commercial domains: The most brand-direct model.
- 88% of top sources differ between any two AI models: The average overlap is just 12%.
- Microsoft Copilot relies on local sources the most: 53% of its citations in non-English prompts are on local-language domains, vs ~35% for ChatGPT and Google AI Overview.
Which sources should you target to get cited as an accounting and audit brand?
Each model has a distinct citation character. The table below shows the domains that define each model's top tier.
| Model | Most-cited domains | Citation character |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | reddit.com, rsm.global, crowe.com, cincodias.elpais.com, en.wikipedia.org | Forum + firm sites + reference + business press |
| Microsoft Copilot | accountancytoday.co.uk, compta-online.com, topaziende.quotidiano.net, luenendonk.de, themanifest.com | Trade press + local rankings/directories |
| Grok | clutch.co, reddit.com, linkedin.com, deloitte.com, instagram.com | Directories + social/UGC + Big Four |
| Google AI Overview | clutch.co, ie.edu, ui1.es, rsm.global, linkedin.com | Directories + firm sites + business schools |
The one point of consensus is telling: clutch.co, a B2B services directory, is the top or near-top domain for three of the four models. When AI assistants do agree, they agree on an aggregator, not on any individual accounting authority. Track the shifts in the live AI visibility rankings.
How have AI source rankings changed over time in the accounting and audit industry?
We split the ~16-week window at its midpoint (early May 2026) and compared each domain's share-rank in the first half against the second. Ranks are computed on each domain's share of citations within its half rather than raw counts.
The rankings are volatile. An Italian business-press ranking page (topaziende.quotidiano.net) surged eighteen places, and Big Four / mid-tier firm sites (crowe.com, kpmg.com, rsm.global) gained ground, while several B2B directories (designrush.com, themanifest.com) and social platforms (instagram.com) faded. The shift hints at AI assistants moving, at least in this window, from generic directories toward firm-owned and trade-press sources. We observe the pattern; we do not claim a sustained trend from a single midpoint split.
What type of content do AI models cite for accounting and audit firms?
We classified every cited domain by category (commercial, editorial, user-generated, institutional, reference). Commercial domains, accounting firm websites, directories, and services pages, dominate every model, but the mix around them differs sharply.
Two patterns stand out. Google AI Overview is the most brand-direct model, 60.5% of its citations are commercial, the highest of the four, meaning it most often points straight at firm and directory pages. And Grok is the user-generated-content model, 19.4% of its citations come from Reddit, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube, roughly double the UGC share of ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot. For accounting firms, earning a presence in professional communities and review threads matters far more for Grok visibility than for any other assistant.
Do AI models cite local-language content for accounting and audit firms?
For the six non-English-speaking markets in scope (German, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, and Spanish-language), we measured the share of citations sitting on a local country-code domain (.de, .fr, .it, .nl, .se, .es), a proxy for local-language sourcing. Across all non-English markets, 41% of citations sit on a local-ccTLD domain, leaving a clear majority on .com and other international domains.
The Spanish figure is a measurement artifact worth flagging: Spanish-language prompts span Spain, Mexico, and Argentina, so local sources live on .mx and .com.ar, not .es. Counting all Spanish-speaking ccTLDs lifts the local share from 14.3% to 42.0%, in line with the other Romance-language markets. Smaller-market languages (Dutch, Swedish, German) draw heavily on home-grown sources; the larger Romance-language markets lean more international.
Which AI model relies most on local sources for accounting and audit firms?
Localization is as much a model trait as a market trait. The table below shows each model's local-ccTLD citation rate per language.
Google AI Overview returned too few French-market citations in this window to report a stable rate (thin cell, excluded). Averaged across non-English markets, Microsoft Copilot relies on local sources the most (53% local), followed by Grok (40%), with Google AI Overview (36%) and ChatGPT (35%) most likely to reach for international sources. For a firm in Germany or the Netherlands, a strong local-language web presence is close to mandatory for Microsoft Copilot and Google AI Overview visibility; for the same firm hoping to surface in ChatGPT, English-language authority carries more weight.
Should accounting and audit firms optimize for each AI model separately?
Very little overlap means yes. We built each model's top-20 most-cited domains and measured how many domains any two models share. The average across all six model pairs is 12.3%, lower than the 27% seen in the hotel industry, meaning accounting answers are even more fragmented across assistants.
The closest two models, Grok and ChatGPT, and Grok and Google AI Overview, still share only six of twenty domains (17.6%). The furthest apart, Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT, share just two: an outsourcing directory and a French HR-services site.
How many sources does each AI model cite per answer?
Grok cites roughly 3.5 times as widely as Microsoft Copilot per answer. That breadth is why Grok produces nearly half of all citations in the dataset despite handling fewer responses, and why a firm has more individual chances to be cited by Grok, but also more competition for attention inside each answer.
Context
This report covers how four AI assistants, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google AI Overview, and Grok, cite web sources when answering accounting and audit-firm questions. The data spans 21,158 AI responses and over 220,000 cited sources collected over roughly 16 weeks (10 March to 29 June 2026) across 12 countries and 7 languages.
What the data can tell us: which domains and content types each model relies on, how much they overlap, how localization varies by market and model, and how the source mix shifted over the window. What it cannot: it does not measure click-through, real-world referrals, or revenue. Localization is approximated by country-code domains, not by analyzing page language directly, so a local-language page on a .com domain reads as "international." Findings are observational and describe association, not causation.
Methodology
How we measured this
We tracked four AI models responding to accounting and audit-firm prompts across 12 markets and 7 languages over roughly 16 weeks. Each response was parsed to extract its source citations, the URLs and domains the model actually cited, not merely retrieved. Every cited domain was classified by content type using a global domain registry, and cross-model overlap was measured by comparing each model pair's top-20 most-cited domains.
For localization, each cited source's domain was matched against the prompt-language country-code TLD as a proxy for local-language sourcing, for the six non-English markets (English markets excluded). Because this proxy is domain-based rather than page-language-based, a local-language page on a .com domain reads as international, and Spanish is understated (its prompts span ES/MX/AR, the all-Spanish-ccTLD figure is 42.0%). To track movement over time, the window was split at its midpoint and each domain's within-half citation share ranked in both halves. Model coverage varied across the observation window, so temporal movements are reported as relative ranks within each half. Every reported figure passed the recommended sample-size threshold for its comparison.
Frequently asked questions
Do different AI models cite the same sources for accounting questions?
No, barely. Any two models share only about 12% of their top-cited domains, meaning roughly 88% of the sources one model relies on do not appear in another's top tier. Accounting answers are more fragmented across assistants than even the hotel industry we benchmarked.
Which AI model cites the most sources per answer?
Grok, by a wide margin, about 28 sources per response, versus 11 for Google AI Overview, 8 for Microsoft Copilot, and 6 for ChatGPT. Grok reads roughly 3.5 times as widely as Microsoft Copilot.
What kind of websites do AI assistants cite for accounting firms?
Mostly commercial sites, firm websites and B2B directories, which make up 46–61% of citations depending on the model. Google AI Overview is the most brand-direct (60.5% commercial); Grok leans hardest on user-generated content like Reddit and LinkedIn (19.4%).
Do AI models cite local-language content outside English markets?
Partly. About 41% of citations in non-English prompts sit on local country-code domains; the rest are on .com and other international sites. Dutch, Swedish, and German markets are the most locally sourced (67–70%); French and Italian sit near half.
Which model is best at local-language sourcing?
Microsoft Copilot relies on local sources the most, about 53% of its citations in non-English prompts are on local-language domains, followed by Grok (40%). ChatGPT and Google AI Overview (both ~35%) lean more international.
Does being a Big Four firm guarantee AI citations?
No. Deloitte, KPMG, and EY appear in several models' top tiers, but B2B directories (clutch.co, themanifest.com), trade press, and local ranking sites out-cite them in most models. The most-cited domain for two of the four models is a services directory, not an accounting firm.
Do AI source rankings change over time?
Yes, noticeably. Over our 16-week window, an Italian business-press ranking page climbed from #25 to #7 and firm sites like Crowe and KPMG gained ground, while several directories and social platforms fell. We treat this as an observed shift, not a confirmed long-term trend.
What should an accounting or audit firm do with this?
Treat AI visibility as four separate races. Own a strong, local-language firm website (for Google AI Overview and Microsoft Copilot), maintain presence on B2B directories like clutch.co (where models agree), invest in professional-community and review presence (for Grok), and build English-language authority and trade-press coverage (for ChatGPT). Optimizing for one assistant leaves you invisible in most of the others.
