AEO vs SEO vs GEO: what is genuinely different, and what is vendor rebranding
AEO (answer engine optimization) and GEO (generative engine optimization) are two names for the same goal: getting your brand into AI-generated answers. For Google's own AI features, Google says that work "is optimizing for the search experience, and thus still SEO".[1] The real split is not between the acronyms but between engines: 76% of AI Overview citations come from Google's top 10, while only about 8% of ChatGPT's do[4].
Are AEO, GEO and SEO actually different things?
Two of them are the same thing, and the third overlaps with both more than vendors admit. AEO and GEO both describe the work of appearing inside an AI-generated answer rather than in a list of links. Google's own guide, last updated 10 July 2026, names both acronyms and then files them under SEO: "From Google Search's perspective, optimizing for generative AI search is optimizing for the search experience, and thus still SEO"[1].
That statement is accurate for Google and incomplete for everyone else. Search Engine Journal's report on the guide points out that it applies to Google Search, and that other platforms such as ChatGPT or Perplexity may weight signals differently[7]. So the useful question is not "AEO or GEO or SEO?" It is "which engine are my buyers using, and does that engine pick sources the way Google ranks pages?"
We have already covered the two-way comparison in detail in our GEO vs SEO breakdown. This article deals with the third acronym and with how much of the difference is real.
Where did the terms AEO and GEO come from?
AEO is older than generative AI search, and GEO started as an academic paper. The order matters, because it shows that AEO was not invented for ChatGPT and GEO was not invented by marketers.
| When | Term | What happened | How solid the date is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early web era | SEO | Ranking pages in a list of links. The oldest of the three by a wide margin. | Undisputed, but the exact first use is contested and we do not cite one |
| 2017 or 2018 | AEO | Jason Barnard's company, Kalicube, says he coined "Answer Engine Optimization" in 2017, "before the industry recognized AI would transform search"[2] | Self-reported. The same page also labels it 2018 in a diagram[2] |
| 16 November 2023 | GEO | Pranjal Aggarwal and five co-authors post "GEO: Generative Engine Optimization" to arXiv[3] | Firm: dated preprint |
| 2025 to 2026 | AEO / GEO | Vendors adopt both labels, often together. Conductor's 2026 benchmarks report puts "AEO / GEO" in its title[6] | Firm |
| 15 May 2026 | All three | Google publishes a guide stating that optimizing for its generative AI features is "still SEO"[7][1] | Firm: reported on the day, page since updated |
Two things stand out. First, AEO predates generative AI search, so its revival is a relabel of an existing idea: being the answer, not a link. Second, GEO came with a definition and a test setup. The paper reports that its methods can "boost visibility by up to 40% in generative engine responses"[3]. That figure comes from the authors' own experimental setup in 2023, not from live ChatGPT or Google results in 2026, so treat it as evidence that content changes can matter, not as a forecast for your site.
Where does the work genuinely differ?
The work differs by engine, not by acronym. In Ahrefs' study of 15,000 long-tail queries, published August 2025, 76% of Google AI Overview citations came from pages in Google's top 10. For the standalone assistants the overlap was far lower: 8% for ChatGPT's in-text citations, 8.6% for Gemini, 8.2% for Copilot and 28.6% for Perplexity[4].
Read that as two different jobs:
- Google's AI Overviews and AI Mode. They mostly cite what Google already ranks. Good SEO is most of the work, which is exactly what Google's guide says[1].
- ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot. More than 9 in 10 of their cited URLs sat outside Google's top 10 for the same query in Ahrefs' 2025 data[4]. Ranking well helps less here, and being discussed on other sites helps more.
Off-site mentions are the clearest example of genuinely different work. In a separate Ahrefs study of 75,000 brands, published May 2025, branded web mentions correlated with AI Overview brand visibility at 0.664, against 0.218 for backlinks[5]. Ahrefs itself flags that correlation is not causation[5], and Google warns that "seeking inauthentic 'mentions' across the web isn't as helpful as it might seem"[1]. Both can be true: earned discussion on forums, review sites and press matters, and manufactured mentions do not count as earned.
| Work | Classic Google results | Google AI Overviews and AI Mode | ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crawlable, indexable pages | Essential | Essential | Essential for any engine that browses |
| Ranking in the top 10 | The goal | Strong predictor: 76% of citations[4] | Weak predictor: about 8%[4] |
| Backlinks | Core signal | Weaker correlation than mentions[5] | Not measured in these studies |
| Earned brand mentions elsewhere | Indirect | Strongest correlation found[5] | Likely important, not yet well measured |
| Measurement | Rankings and clicks | Search Console AI report plus trackers | Repeated prompt sampling |
The "not yet well measured" cell is honest, not modest. We have not seen a public study of the same size as Ahrefs' 75,000 brands that isolates which signals drive ChatGPT mentions specifically.
Which parts are vendor rebranding?
Anything sold as a special AI format for Google is, on Google's own word, unnecessary. The guide lists several tactics it says you do not need for Google Search[1]:
- llms.txt and other AI files. "You don't need to create new machine readable files, AI text files, markup, or Markdown to appear in Google Search."
- Chunking. "There's no requirement to break your content into tiny pieces for AI to better understand it."
- AI-specific rewriting. "You don't need to write in a specific way just for generative AI search."
- Special schema. "There's no special schema.org markup you need to add."
The other common form of rebranding is renaming an SEO retainer. If a proposal labelled AEO consists of keyword research, on-page fixes, FAQ blocks and link building, it is an SEO proposal, and you should price it like one.
Read more
A fair caveat: Google speaks only for Google. Nothing in its guide tells you how ChatGPT or Perplexity treat an llms.txt file. We have not seen published evidence that these files change citations in any major assistant, so we treat them as low priority rather than proven useless. That is an inference, not a measured result.
Also note how labels drift inside a single report. In Conductor's 2026 benchmarks report, "AEO" is used throughout the text and "GEO" appears in the title only[6]. When a market leader uses the two interchangeably, nobody should be charging you twice for them.
Which one should you budget for?
Budget for SEO first, then for the off-site work that standalone assistants reward, and do not create a separate AEO line item. The traffic numbers explain the order. Conductor's 2026 benchmarks, based on 13,770 domains and 3.3 billion sessions from May to September 2025, found AI referrals were 1.08% of website traffic, growing about 1% a month, with ChatGPT sending 87.4% of them[6]. In the same data, AI Overviews appeared on 25.11% of the 21.9 million Google searches analysed[6].
So for most sites in 2025 data, Google still sent far more visits than any assistant, and a quarter of those Google searches carried an AI Overview that mostly cites pages already ranking. Strong SEO covers both. The case for extra spend on what people call GEO is about influence before the click: if your buyers ask ChatGPT for a shortlist, the referral count understates how much the answer shapes their choice.
A practical split:
- Weak organic rankings: fix SEO first. Google's AI features will mostly follow.
- Good rankings, absent from ChatGPT answers: this is where separate work pays. Earned mentions in communities, reviews and press, plus a way to measure AI answers over time. Our guide to measuring AI visibility properly covers the sampling.
- Category decided by recommendations (software, agencies, consumer products with many alternatives): plan for both from the start.
If you want a sense of what that second budget line costs as a service, our pricing page sets out what is included.
How do you check whether a proposal is real AEO or GEO work?
Ask what it changes outside your own website, and how it measures AI answers. Real work for standalone assistants shows up in places SEO rarely touches: third-party communities, review platforms, editorial coverage, and a fixed set of buyer prompts tracked repeatedly across engines. If the deliverables are all on your own pages, the acronym on the cover is decoration. If the reporting is one screenshot of one ChatGPT answer, the measurement is too thin to trust, because assistant answers change from run to run.
Frequently asked
What is AEO?
AEO stands for answer engine optimization: the work of getting your content or brand chosen as the answer an engine gives back, rather than one link in a list. Kalicube says Jason Barnard coined the term in 2017, though the same page also dates it to 2018. Today it is mostly used to mean appearing in AI answers from ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google's AI features.
Is AEO the same as GEO?
In practice, yes. Both describe getting a brand mentioned or cited inside AI-generated answers. AEO is the older term and predates generative AI search; GEO comes from a November 2023 research paper on generative engines. Vendors use them interchangeably, and Conductor's 2026 benchmarks report uses AEO in its text and both in its title. Do not pay for them as two services.
Is AEO replacing SEO?
No. Google says optimizing for its generative AI features is still SEO, and Ahrefs found in 2025 that 76% of AI Overview citations come from pages in Google's top 10. In Conductor's data from May to September 2025, AI referrals were only 1.08% of website traffic. SEO remains the base; extra work is mainly needed for standalone assistants like ChatGPT.
Do I need an llms.txt file for AEO or GEO?
Not for Google. Its guide says you do not need machine readable files, AI text files or Markdown to appear in Google Search. Google does not speak for ChatGPT or Perplexity, and we have not seen published evidence that llms.txt changes citations in those assistants either. Treat it as optional and low priority, behind content quality and earned mentions.
Sources
- Google Search Central, "Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search", last updated 10 July 2026, checked October 2026.
- Kalicube, "Answer Engine Optimization", entity page stating the term was "coined by Jason Barnard in 2017" (a diagram on the same page says 2018), checked October 2026. Self-reported claim.
- Pranjal Aggarwal, Vishvak Murahari, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ashwin Kalyan, Karthik Narasimhan and Ameet Deshpande, "GEO: Generative Engine Optimization", arXiv, v1 submitted 16 November 2023.
- Ahrefs, "Only 12% of AI Cited URLs Rank in Google's Top 10 for the Original Prompt", Louise Linehan with Xibeijia Guan, 11 August 2025. 15,000 long-tail queries across ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Perplexity.
- Ahrefs, "An Analysis of AI Overview Brand Visibility Factors (75K Brands Studied)", Louise Linehan with Xibeijia Guan, 26 May 2025. 75,000 brands, Spearman correlations.
- Conductor, "The 2026 AEO / GEO Benchmarks Report", page dated 6 July 2026. 13,770 domains, 3.3 billion sessions, 21.9 million Google searches, data from May to September 2025.
- Search Engine Journal, "Google's New AI Search Guide Calls AEO And GEO 'Still SEO'", Matt G. Southern, 15 May 2026.