Two tools, two share-of-voice numbers
Each vendor scores sentiment its own way and counts syndication differently. The comparison was never valid, it just looked like it was.
SolutionsCompetitive Intelligence
A share-of-voice number that survives the first hard question.
You and every tracked rival read through the identical engine, across press, social and AI answers. Same methodology on both sides, which is the only way the comparison means anything.
One engineBoth sides, same scoring
3 channelsPress, social and AI answers
NarrativeNot just who is louder
What this actually looks like today.
You see that they moved, never why
A rival's share climbs four points. Volume tells you it happened. It doesn't tell you what the coverage argued, which is the part you could act on.
The opening closes before you use it
A competitor has a bad week. By the time it surfaces in a monthly report, the window to position against it has shut.
If your number and their number came from different methodologies, the comparison was decoration. One engine is what makes it evidence.
A competitor has a bad week. The opening lasts about ten days.
Most brands notice in the monthly report, which is roughly a week after it stopped being useful.
1 / 6
- Tue
Their sentiment moves
A tracked rival's negative coverage climbs sharply, read on the same engine as yours, so the shift is real rather than a methodology artefact.
- Wed
Share of voice shifts
Four points of category conversation move across press, social and AI answers, and you can see exactly which channel carried it.
- Wed
The narrative names the cause
Not only that they dropped, but what the coverage is actually arguing, which tells you whether this is a durable opening or a one-day story.
- Thu
The AI answers follow
Two engines begin hedging about them on a comparison prompt you both appear in. That shift outlasts the news cycle, because models update slowly.
- Thu
Positioning, drafted
Content Studio builds a competitive-angle piece from what is actually happening, without ever naming them.
- Fri
Board-ready, with methodology
The same numbers land in the report with how they were measured attached, so the claim survives the first sceptical question.
Built for this job specifically.
Share of voice, honestly
Press, social and AI-answer presence measured identically for you and every tracked rival.
Narrative per competitor
What is being argued about each brand, not just how loud each one is.
AI-answer competition
Who the engines recommend when a buyer asks your category's real questions.
Competitive-angle drafts
Positioning built from a rival's actual week, never naming them.
Pitch gaps
Outlets running them and not you, ranked by how winnable they look.
A reliability floor
Thin comparisons are labelled thin rather than presented as a confident lead.
The screen you'd open first.
Illustrative numbers. Your workspace runs on your brand's real data from day one.
Competitive landscape
Press + social + AI · 30 days
Sentiment gapYou vs category
+8 ptsImproving
Rival 2 · this week
- Negative coverage+18
- AI recommendation rate-6 pts
- NarrativeService quality
Which parts of the platform do the work here.
Everything is included. These are the ones this job leans on most, in order.
01Market IntelligenceNarrative tracking for your brand, every tracked competitor and the category itself, plus the executives your reputation rides on and the share-price context around all of it.02AI ReputationDaily tracking of the real questions your buyers ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity and Google's AI Overviews: how you're described, whether the claims are true, and whether you get recommended or a competitor does.03Press Intelligence5,000+ sources across India and internationally, swept every 2 hours, read natively in 40+ languages including 12 Indian ones.04Social ListeningHashtags, mentions and keywords tracked from licensed post-level data on Instagram, X and Threads, refreshed every 30 minutes.05Content StudioStatements, rebuttals, pitches and the corrective content that reshapes what AI reads about you, drafted from the live data behind the alert instead of a blank page, in the language the story broke in.06ReportsWeekly, monthly or on-demand PDFs across any date range, covering every channel, with the same reliability rules that apply on screen.
With and without Brillaince.
Without BrillainceWith Brillaince
MethodologyDifferent vendors on each sideOne engine, both sides
Why they movedUnknownThe narrative, named
AI answersNot measured at allRecommendation rate per engine
TimingVisible in the monthly reportWhile the opening is still open
What this deliberately doesn't do
Every monitoring tool's page is wall-to-wall claims. Here is where the honest line sits.
- We compare tracked rivals, not a vague industry averageYou configure who counts as a competitor. An 'industry benchmark' assembled from whatever was lying around isn't a real comparison.
- Thin comparisons stay labelled thinBelow a reliability floor, a share-of-voice gap is noise. We say so rather than letting you take it into a board meeting.
About competitive intelligence.
How many competitors can we track?
It scales with your plan, and each tracked rival gets the full treatment: share of voice, sentiment, narrative and AI-answer comparison.
Can we track a competitor's hashtags too?
Yes. Competitor hashtag and keyword tracking runs on the same basis as your own, which is what makes share of conversation meaningful.
Do you name competitors in drafted content?
No. Competitive-angle drafts use the positioning opening without naming the rival, which is both better practice and safer.