Probe like a real buyer
We ask the four AIs the questions your buyers actually type — situational, not keyword-shaped. Phrasing matters more than most tools admit; we've measured the swing.
The loop
Probe. Ship. Re-probe. Done.
We probe ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity with the buyer prompts your category actually types — "best NYC family law attorney for hedge fund executives," "who handles complex equity divisions in divorce" — sampling each prompt 10 to 30 times to beat sample noise. For every miss, you get an answer block, a FAQPage JSON-LD, and publish-ready markdown. Fourteen days after you ship the fixes, we re-run the same deck and prove what moved.
See what AI says about you, today
Get the exact paragraph to publish
Know which prompts you're losing
Re-run. Prove the rate moved.
Live data
Viclaro Atlas
Public, versioned rankings of how the four major assistants recommend businesses in each category. Live across 12 categories, re-scanned on a weekly schedule, 95% Wilson CIs on every rank, every snapshot dated, methodology in the open. Bring popcorn if you're in the top 10.
New York City · Legal
Personal Injury
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Block O'Toole & Murphy | 40.1% ±3.3 | 4/4 |
| #2 | Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf | 39.5% ±3.3 | 4/4 |
| #3 | The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C. | 14.2% ±2.4 | 4/4 |
vv3.1
N = 832
Updated 3 hours ago
New York City · Legal
Employment Law (Plaintiff)
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Outten & Golden LLP | 46.4% ±3.5 | 4/4 |
| #2 | Wigdor LLP | 40.3% ±3.4 | 4/4 |
| #3 | Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight | 32.1% ±3.2 | 4/4 |
vv3.1
N = 800
Updated 3 hours ago
New York City · Medical
Cosmetic Dentistry
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Dr. Michael Apa | 35.6% ±2.8 | 4/4 |
| #2 | Dr. Marc Lowenberg | 32.6% ±2.7 | 4/4 |
| #3 | Lowenberg, Lituchy & Kantor | 21.1% ±2.4 | 4/4 |
vv1.0
N = 1128
Updated 3 hours ago
New York City · Medical
IVF & Fertility
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | RMA of New York: Westside | 47.8% ±2.9 | 4/4 |
| #2 | NYU Langone Fertility Center | 38.2% ±2.8 | 4/4 |
| #3 | Columbia University Fertility Center | 28.6% ±2.6 | 4/4 |
vv1.0
N = 1128
Updated 3 hours ago
New York City · Legal
Immigration Law
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP | 34.7% ±3.2 | 4/4 |
| #2 | H | 29.5% ±3.1 | 4/4 |
| #3 | Klasko Immigration | 22.9% ±2.9 | 4/4 |
vv3.1
N = 824
Updated 3 hours ago
New York City · Legal
Estate Planning
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| No top-tier entries yet. | |||
vv1.0
N = 1128
Updated 3 hours ago
New York City · Medical
Cosmetic Surgery
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Dr. Andrew Jacono | 16.8% ±2.2 | 4/4 |
| #2 | David Rosenberg | 12.5% ±1.9 | 3/4 |
| #3 | Dr. Sam Rizk, MD | 12.0% ±1.9 | 4/4 |
vv1.0
N = 1128
Updated 3 hours ago
New York City · Legal
Real Estate Law
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| No top-tier entries yet. | |||
vv2.0
N = 200
Updated 4 hours ago
United States · Finance
Advisor Discovery
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | SmartAsset's SmartAdvisor | 34.8% ±3.9 | 4/4 |
| #2 | NAPFA's Find an Advisor | 28.8% ±3.7 | 4/4 |
vv1.0
N = 560
Updated 2 days ago
New York City · Finance
CPA & Tax
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| No top-tier entries yet. | |||
vv1.0
N = 1128
Updated 2 days ago
New York City · Finance
Wealth Management
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| No top-tier entries yet. | |||
vv1.0
N = 1084
Updated 2 days ago
New York City · Legal
Divorce & Family Law
| # | Firm | Share | LLMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP | 21.0% ±3.4 | 4/4 |
| #2 | Berkman Bottger Newman & Schein | 17.8% ±3.2 | 4/4 |
| #3 | Blank Rome LLP | 14.7% ±3.0 | 4/4 |
vv3.1
N = 544
Updated 1 week ago
Reproducible
Every citation traces to a verbatim AI response. Same prompts in, same numbers out. Audit us if you want.
Honest CIs
95% Wilson intervals next to every rank. We don't pretend mid-tier movement is signal. (Most tools do.)
Public + free
Browse every ranking, click into the verbatim AI response, see who beat you. No login wall. All indexes →
The construct-validity problem
Page 1 of Google doesn't get you quoted in ChatGPT.
AI doesn't crawl the SERP. It crawls pages, looking for one paragraph it can quote. Win the keywords but lose the direct answer and the assistant skips you — and quotes the competitor who phrased it crisper. Most "AI visibility" tools measure a different thing and call it the same. We wrote the paper on that.
Viclaro measures the citation itself, then ships the paragraph that fixes it.
What you get
One audit. One diagnosis. Copy your engineer pastes.
Not a dashboard. Not a Slack alert. A 40-page diagnostic plus the exact paragraph to publish, per buyer prompt AI is currently skipping you on.
See exactly why AI skipped you
Missing answer? Weak proof? Vague positioning? Crawl-blocked CDN? The audit names the gap on every losing prompt — no generic "improve your content" hand-wave.
Read your verbatim AI response
No black box. Click any prompt, see what the assistant actually said, see who it cited instead. The data is the deliverable.
Paste-ready paragraph + JSON-LD
Per failed prompt: an H2, an answer block, a FAQPage schema chunk. Drop it into your CMS. One PR, citation rate moves. The pull request writes itself.
Re-run to prove it worked
Same prompts, 14 days post-publish. Citation-rate delta per provider per prompt. Receipts you can show your CMO without having to invent them.
Methodology you can publish
Wilson CIs disclosed. Sample size disclosed. Provider stack disclosed. Construct-validity paper public. We'd rather be replicable than mystical.
Why teams switch
The answer is the new SERP.
Buyers don't click 10 blue links anymore. They ask. They paste the response into Slack. They book the firm AI named. Most marketing dashboards measure clicks and rankings — they're measuring a game that's quietly ending.
Not this
- • Google-rank vanity
- • Click-tracking dashboards with zero context
- • Generic SEO checklists you've seen since 2009
- • "AI visibility scores" with no methodology behind them
This
- • Can ChatGPT describe what you do in one sentence?
- • Do your pages answer what buyers actually ask AI?
- • Is there enough on-page proof for AI to recommend you over a peer?
- • When buyers ask AI to compare options, do you appear at all?
Stop guessing. Start measuring. Then ship the fix.
Proof, not promises
Receipts. Not vibes.
Every audit saves the prompts, the verbatim AI response, who got cited instead, and your before-state citation rate. Re-run 14 days after you publish. The delta per provider per prompt is the receipt — bring it to the partner meeting.
Every prompt we asked
Every AI response, verbatim
Why you won or lost each one
Runbook + JSON-LD, ready to ship
Your competitors are already in AI answers. Are you?
Free single-prompt scan first. Or contact us for a full audit — CMS-ready in 5 business days, refund if zero fixes are paste-applicable.