Highlights
- The dataset: The analysis behind this study covers over 220,000 AI source citations from prompts specific to the HR and recruitment industry, with AI responses from four AI models run in 12 countries during Q2 2026.
- Only 4 domains appear in all four models' top 20: clutch.co, forbes.com, roberthalf.com, and t-mapp.com.
- 23% of Grok's citations are from user-generated domains: Reddit and LinkedIn, three times Google AI Overview's share and roughly double ChatGPT's.
- 74% of Google AI Overview's citations are from commercial domains: The most commercial-heavy model.
- 74% Dutch-domain citation rate for Google AI Overview vs 26% for Grok: The localization split in one line.
- 29 sources/response for Grok vs 7 for ChatGPT: A ~3x gap in how wide each model casts its net.
- 76% of top sources differ between any two AI models: Optimize for one and you are absent from most of another's list.
Which sources should you target to get cited as an HR and recruitment brand?
Here is what each model's top of the list actually looks like:
| Model | Top 5 cited domains | Citation character |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | reddit.com, en.wikipedia.org, clutch.co, pin.com, roberthalf.com | Community + reference + brand-direct |
| Microsoft Copilot | clutch.co, themanifest.com, t-mapp.com, peoplemanagingpeople.com, goodfirms.co | B2B directories + trade media |
| Google AI Overview | glow-careers.de, t-mapp.com, devsdata.com, roberthalf.com, clutch.co | Local careers sites + directories |
| Grok | clutch.co, reddit.com, linkedin.com, devsdata.com, forbes.com | Directories + social + editorial |
Review directories (clutch.co, themanifest.com, goodfirms.co) and agency aggregators (t-mapp.com, devsdata.com) are the connective tissue, but each model weights them differently and surrounds them with its own preferred neighbors. A recruitment brand optimizing for one AI model is, on average, absent from about three-quarters of the domains the other models prefer.
How have AI source rankings changed over time in the HR and recruitment industry?
We split the 110-day window at its midpoint (early May 2026) and ranked the 20 most-cited domains within each half, comparing each domain's rank within its half rather than its raw count.
The headline is the retreat of social and the rise of localized directories. LinkedIn fell from #3 to #14, and Instagram and Reddit also softened. Meanwhile t-mapp.com climbed from #12 to #3 and the German careers directory glow-careers.de jumped from #18 to #6, while established staffing brands roberthalf.com and adecco.com both gained ground. The two most-cited domains overall, clutch.co and reddit.com, held #1 and #2 in both halves, the top of the directory stack is stable even as the middle churns.
What type of content do AI models cite for HR & recruitment agencies?
Every model is commercial-first, unsurprising in an industry of agencies and vendors. But the second-place category is where the models diverge, and that divergence is the real signal.
Google AI Overview is the most commercially concentrated model, sending nearly three in four citations to commercial domains and almost ignoring user-generated content. Grok sits at the opposite end: it leans on UGC, Reddit threads, LinkedIn posts, founder forums, for nearly 23% of its citations, three times Google AI Overview's share and roughly double ChatGPT's. ChatGPT cites reference material (Wikipedia and similar) more than any other model at 4.7%. For an agency, a glowing client thread on Reddit or an active LinkedIn presence is a Grok and Microsoft Copilot play, while a well-structured commercial site with clear service pages is what feeds Google AI Overview.
Do AI models cite local-language content for HR & recruitment agencies?
To gauge localization without scraping page language, we used country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) as a proxy for local-language content, excluding English-language markets. This is a proxy: it undercounts local content published on .com, so treat the absolute numbers as directional and the cross-market and cross-model comparisons as the real finding.
Even in the most localized market, roughly half of citations still go to global (largely .com) domains, consistent with the broader pattern that English-language and global sources carry disproportionate weight in AI answers. Spanish sits lowest, partly because its citations are split across many countries (Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia) and a large slice still resolves to .com.
Which AI model relies most on local sources for HR & recruitment agencies?
The market averages hide a stark per-model split. Google AI Overview consistently cites local sources; Grok consistently does not.
Google AI Overview cites local-ccTLD domains 59–74% of the time in German, Italian, Dutch, and Swedish prompts, it behaves like a local search engine. Grok does the inverse, never clearing 37% local in any market and bottoming out at 25.8% in Italian. Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT land in between. A few ChatGPT cells (Dutch, Swedish, French) rest on thinner samples, and Google AI Overview produced no usable French cell in this window. For agencies operating in non-English markets, a local-ccTLD domain and local-language content are close to mandatory for Google AI Overview visibility and largely irrelevant for Grok.
Should HR & recruitment agencies optimize for each AI model separately?
Yes, almost entirely. We took each model's 20 most-cited domains and measured how much each pair shares. The average across all six model pairs is just 24%, meaning about 76% of any pair's combined top sources are unique to one model.
Across all four lists there are 49 distinct domains, and only four of them, clutch.co, forbes.com, roberthalf.com, and t-mapp.com, are cited by every model. Everything else is contested or exclusive.
How many sources does each AI model cite per response?
The models disagree not just on which sources to trust but on how many to cite at all. Grok casts a vastly wider net than everyone else.
Grok cites 28.7 sources per response, a roughly 3.9x wider net than ChatGPT's 7.3, with Google AI Overview and Microsoft Copilot clustered near 8–10. For Grok visibility, breadth of presence matters: appearing across many directories, forums, and profiles improves the odds of being caught in its wide sweep. For ChatGPT, where only a handful of sources make each answer, being one of the few authoritative citations is far more valuable than sheer footprint.
Context
This analysis draws from Temso's AI visibility monitoring platform, which tracks how brands appear in AI model responses across ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Grok, and Google AI Overview. The dataset covers HR and recruitment-agency prompts across 12 countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Mexico, Argentina) and 7 languages over a 110-day window (March–June 2026), built from 21,404 AI responses and over 220,000 cited sources.
It measures what AI models cite, not whether a citation drove a hire or a client win. AI source citation is a visibility signal, not a conversion metric. These findings reflect citation behavior for recruitment-agency prompts in the monitored markets and may not generalize to all agencies, prompt types, or other verticals.
Methodology
How we measured this
We tracked four AI models responding to HR and recruitment-agency prompts in local languages across 12 countries. Each response was parsed to extract source citations: the URLs, domains, and metadata referenced. Only sources actually cited in a response are counted. Domain categories (commercial, UGC, editorial, reference, institutional) were assigned from a global domain registry, leaving a 6–10% uncategorized residual reported as-is. Cross-model overlap was measured on each model pair's top-20 most-cited domains, giving an average overlap of 24% and a complementary share-that-differs of 76%. Temporal analysis split the observation period at its midpoint and compared domain rankings within each half; model coverage varied across the observation window, so movements are read as relative rank shifts rather than raw-count changes.
The analysis covers over 220,000 cited sources from 21,404 AI responses. Sample sizes exceeded recommended thresholds for every reported finding. Localization is measured by a country-code-domain proxy (the source records carry no detected content language), so those figures are directional and exclude English-language prompts, which sit overwhelmingly on generic domains. Three smaller localization cells (ChatGPT Dutch, Swedish, and French) rest on thinner samples and should be read as suggestive.
Frequently asked questions
Do different AI models really cite different sources for the same HR question?
Yes, dramatically so. Any two of the four models share only about 24% of their top-20 cited domains, so roughly 76% of the sources one model relies on are absent from another's top list. Only four domains are cited by all four models.
Which sources matter most across all AI models for recruitment agencies?
The review directory clutch.co is the most broadly cited domain, it ranks #1 for Microsoft Copilot and Grok, top-five for Google AI Overview (where the local careers site glow-careers.de leads), and top-three for ChatGPT. Reddit, forbes.com, roberthalf.com, and the agency directory t-mapp.com are the other consistent anchors. Beyond those four, each model has its own preferred neighborhood.
Which AI model cites the most sources per answer?
Grok, by a wide margin, about 28.7 cited sources per response, versus 9.7 for Google AI Overview, 8.4 for Microsoft Copilot, and 7.3 for ChatGPT. Grok casts a roughly 3.9x wider net than ChatGPT, so breadth of presence matters more for Grok visibility.
What type of content do AI models cite for recruitment topics?
Commercial domains dominate every model (58–74% of citations). The differentiator is the runner-up: Grok pulls 22.9% of its citations from user-generated content like Reddit and LinkedIn, while Google AI Overview pulls only 7.6%. ChatGPT cites reference sources such as Wikipedia most, at 4.7%.
Do AI models cite local-language content outside English markets?
It depends entirely on the model. Google AI Overview cites local-ccTLD domains 59–74% of the time in German, Italian, Dutch, and Swedish markets, behaving like a local search engine. Grok stays below 37% local everywhere. Across all models, Swedish (51.7%) and German (49.6%) markets rely most on local sources; Spanish least (34.3%).
If I run a recruitment agency, where should I focus first?
Get listed and reviewed on directories like Clutch, The Manifest, and GoodFirms, this feeds every model. For Grok and Microsoft Copilot, invest in community signal on Reddit and LinkedIn. For Google AI Overview, especially outside the US, prioritize a local-ccTLD site with local-language content. For ChatGPT, a clean reference footprint and a strong brand-direct presence help.
Did the rankings change over the period studied?
Yes. On a rank-within-half basis, LinkedIn slid from #3 to #14 and social platforms generally receded, while localized and agency directories rose, t-mapp.com climbed from #12 to #3 and glow-careers.de from #18 to #6. The very top (clutch.co, reddit.com) stayed stable.
How confident should I be in these numbers?
The structural findings, that models diverge, that commercial sources dominate, that Grok cites far more sources, and that Google AI Overview relies most on local sources, rest on hundreds of thousands of citations and hold up under confidence-interval testing. Treat the exact localization percentages as directional (a ccTLD proxy) and the three flagged smaller cells as suggestive rather than definitive.
