AI Visibility Score · research
PL

Why does your company need a GEO report? Summary report based on analysis of 400+ Polish companies

Average GEO score: 40.6/100. 66% of companies below 50/100. 95% without llms.txt. 5 sectors: Telecommunications (39.5), E-commerce (42.3), Banking (47.1), Insurance (41.7), Media (49.5). No company reached 80/100.

Telecommunications — average 39.5/100

  1. T-Mobile.pl (64/100): 73 FAQ with JSON-LD, but no llms.txt and outdated sitemap
  2. Orange.pl (63/100): Sitemap from 2022 (4 years outdated), no Schema Product/Offer
  3. Plus.pl (Polkomtel) (49/100): WordPress with numerous plugins, no FAQ, no authors
  4. Play.pl (P4) (42/100): No Schema, no FAQ, minimal educational content

Scenario: User asks AI: "How much does an unlimited internet plan cost at Play?" — ChatGPT does NOT cite play.pl — because Play lacks Schema Product/Offer on its offer pages, content is CTA-driven ("Buy now!") instead of informational. AI cites comparison sites, telepolis.pl and Reddit. The user gets prices from 3 months ago.

None of the 4 operators reaches the "Good" threshold (60+). None formats content in optimal citable blocks. The telecom industry is massively invisible in AI search.

E-commerce — average 42.3/100

  1. Allegro (62/100): DataDome blocks AI crawlers on WAF, no llms.txt
  2. Ceneo (52/100): No FAQ JSON-LD, CSR hinders indexing
  3. Decathlon (52/100): No llms.txt, limited Schema on products
  4. Zalando (52/100): No dedicated AI directives in robots.txt
  5. x-kom (48/100): React CSR — site invisible to AI crawlers, Cloudflare blocks
  6. Answear (44/100): No AI rules in robots.txt, weak Schema
  7. Eobuwie (41/100): No structured data, minimal content
  8. Empik (38/100): No llms.txt, no FAQ, poor citability
  9. Media Expert (29/100): Critically low score — missing almost all GEO signals

Scenario: User asks AI: "What laptop for remote work under 4000 PLN do you recommend? Where to buy it?" — ChatGPT recommends laptop models, but when asked "where to buy" doesn't direct to x-kom or Media Expert — because their pages render client-side (CSR/React), and AI crawlers see an empty page. AI links to YouTube reviews and Ceneo.

The Allegro Paradox: Allegro launched Allegro GPT in ChatGPT (API integration), but simultaneously its WAF (DataDome) blocks OAI-SearchBot. Allegro works with OpenAI — and simultaneously blocks its crawlers.

Banking — average 47.1/100

  1. Santander (62/100): Leader — best Schema and FAQ, but no llms.txt
  2. mBank (54/100): Good content base, but no AI-specific structured data
  3. Pekao (52/100): No llms.txt, limited FAQ
  4. Bank Millennium (49/100): No llms.txt, weak financial product citability
  5. BNP Paribas (49/100): No llms.txt, no AI rules in robots.txt
  6. PKO BP (49/100): Largest bank in Poland, but weak AI visibility
  7. Credit Agricole (42/100): No structured data, minimal content
  8. Nest Bank (32/100): Critically weak AI visibility
  9. Alior Bank (28/100): Missing almost all GEO signals

Scenario: User asks AI: "Which bank has the best free personal account in 2026?" — ChatGPT provides general information about accounts, but doesn't cite current terms from banks — because sites lack Schema Product/Offer on banking products. AI relies on months-old comparison articles (bankier.pl, money.pl).

PKO BP — Poland's largest bank — scores 49/100. No bank has an llms.txt file. None presents financial product terms in an AI-readable format.

Insurance — average 41.7/100

  1. Allianz (59/100): Closest to "Good" threshold, but no llms.txt
  2. UNIQA (41/100): Weak citability, no FAQ JSON-LD
  3. Ergo Hestia (38/100): No structured data on products
  4. PZU (38/100): Largest insurer in Poland, but weak AI visibility
  5. Warta (33/100): No llms.txt, minimal Schema

Scenario: User asks AI: "What travel insurance do you recommend for a trip to Asia?" — ChatGPT mentions PZU, Warta and Allianz by name — because they are large and present on Wikipedia. But it doesn't provide offer details (coverage, price, exclusions), because insurer websites don't present this data in an AI-readable format. Instead, AI directs to rankomat.pl.

PZU — Poland's largest insurer — scores 38/100. AI "knows" the brand but can't cite a specific offer. The purchasing decision shifts to intermediaries.

Media — average 49.5/100

  1. Onet.pl (63/100): Leader — extensive structured data, SSR
  2. Benchmark.pl (61/100): Strong technical base, good E-E-A-T
  3. Medonet (61/100): Good medical Schema, authors with credentials
  4. TVN24 (58/100): Good base, but no llms.txt and AI files
  5. Wirtualna Polska (57/100): Solid base, but no AI rules in robots.txt
  6. Filmweb (52/100): Good Schema Movie/Review, but no llms.txt
  7. Pudelek (47/100): Weak citability, no structured data
  8. Gazeta.pl (42/100): No llms.txt, limited Schema Article
  9. 90minut.pl (12/100): Critically weak AI visibility

Scenario: User asks AI: "What happened in Poland today? Give me the top news." — ChatGPT cites Onet and TVN24 more often than other portals — because they have better structured data (Schema Article, NewsArticle with authors and dates). 90minut.pl with a score of 12/100 is practically invisible: sports AI search uses ESPN and Goal.com instead of Polish sources.

Media has the highest average (49.5/100). This is natural — they produce a lot of content. But the gap between the leader (Onet 63) and the bottom of the market (90minut 12) is enormous.

GEO Summary Report

Why does your company need a GEO report?

Łukasz S. · · AIVS

Summary report based on analysis of 400+ Polish companies across 5 sectors. Hard data. Real problems. User scenarios.

400+
companies in database
40.6
avg. GEO/100
66%
below 50/100
95%
without llms.txt

Key finding: Out of 400+ analyzed Polish companies, none reached a score of 80/100 in the GEO audit. The average score is just 40.6/100. The Polish digital economy is massively unprepared for the AI search engine era.


Context
Why GEO is a necessity today

GEO determines whether your brand is visible in responses from ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot and Google AI Overviews. GEO today is what SEO was in 2010.

800M+
users/month
AI search market
180% growth y/y
$30B
forecast to 2034
GEO market value
CAGR 50%+
-25%
traffic drop from traditional
Gartner forecast
search engines by 2026

Telecommunications
Industry average: 39.5/100

The weakest optimized sector in Polish digital economy

CompanyScoreKey issue
T-Mobile.pl6473 FAQ with JSON-LD, but no llms.txt and outdated sitemap
Orange.pl63Sitemap from 2022 (4 years outdated), no Schema Product/Offer
Plus.pl (Polkomtel)49WordPress with numerous plugins, no FAQ, no authors
Play.pl (P4)42No Schema, no FAQ, minimal educational content
User scenario

"How much does an unlimited internet plan cost at Play?"

ChatGPT does NOT cite play.pl — because Play lacks Schema Product/Offer on its offer pages, content is CTA-driven ("Buy now!") instead of informational. AI cites comparison sites, telepolis.pl and Reddit. The user gets prices from 3 months ago.

Key finding: None of the 4 operators reaches the "Good" threshold (60+). None formats content in optimal citable blocks. The telecom industry is massively invisible in AI search.


E-commerce
Industry average: 42.3/100

Paradox: most online transactions, weak AI visibility

CompanyScoreKey issue
Allegro62DataDome blocks AI crawlers on WAF, no llms.txt
Ceneo52No FAQ JSON-LD, CSR hinders indexing
Decathlon52No llms.txt, limited Schema on products
Zalando52No dedicated AI directives in robots.txt
x-kom48React CSR — site invisible to AI crawlers, Cloudflare blocks
Answear44No AI rules in robots.txt, weak Schema
Eobuwie41No structured data, minimal content
Empik38No llms.txt, no FAQ, poor citability
Media Expert29Critically low score — missing almost all GEO signals
User scenario

"What laptop for remote work under 4000 PLN do you recommend? Where to buy it?"

ChatGPT recommends laptop models, but when asked "where to buy" doesn't direct to x-kom or Media Expert — because their pages render client-side (CSR/React), and AI crawlers see an empty page. AI links to YouTube reviews and Ceneo.

Key finding: The Allegro Paradox: Allegro launched Allegro GPT in ChatGPT (API integration), but simultaneously its WAF (DataDome) blocks OAI-SearchBot. Allegro works with OpenAI — and simultaneously blocks its crawlers.


Banking
Industry average: 47.1/100

Best in the comparison, but far from optimal

CompanyScoreKey issue
Santander62Leader — best Schema and FAQ, but no llms.txt
mBank54Good content base, but no AI-specific structured data
Pekao52No llms.txt, limited FAQ
Bank Millennium49No llms.txt, weak financial product citability
BNP Paribas49No llms.txt, no AI rules in robots.txt
PKO BP49Largest bank in Poland, but weak AI visibility
Credit Agricole42No structured data, minimal content
Nest Bank32Critically weak AI visibility
Alior Bank28Missing almost all GEO signals
User scenario

"Which bank has the best free personal account in 2026?"

ChatGPT provides general information about accounts, but doesn't cite current terms from banks — because sites lack Schema Product/Offer on banking products. AI relies on months-old comparison articles (bankier.pl, money.pl).

Key finding: PKO BP — Poland's largest bank — scores 49/100. No bank has an llms.txt file. None presents financial product terms in an AI-readable format.


Insurance
Industry average: 41.7/100

A public trust industry invisible to AI

CompanyScoreKey issue
Allianz59Closest to "Good" threshold, but no llms.txt
UNIQA41Weak citability, no FAQ JSON-LD
Ergo Hestia38No structured data on products
PZU38Largest insurer in Poland, but weak AI visibility
Warta33No llms.txt, minimal Schema
User scenario

"What travel insurance do you recommend for a trip to Asia?"

ChatGPT mentions PZU, Warta and Allianz by name — because they are large and present on Wikipedia. But it doesn't provide offer details (coverage, price, exclusions), because insurer websites don't present this data in an AI-readable format. Instead, AI directs to rankomat.pl.

Key finding: PZU — Poland's largest insurer — scores 38/100. AI "knows" the brand but can't cite a specific offer. The purchasing decision shifts to intermediaries.


Media
Industry average: 49.5/100

Closest to the threshold, but still far from ideal

CompanyScoreKey issue
Onet.pl63Leader — extensive structured data, SSR
Benchmark.pl61Strong technical base, good E-E-A-T
Medonet61Good medical Schema, authors with credentials
TVN2458Good base, but no llms.txt and AI files
Wirtualna Polska57Solid base, but no AI rules in robots.txt
Filmweb52Good Schema Movie/Review, but no llms.txt
Pudelek47Weak citability, no structured data
Gazeta.pl42No llms.txt, limited Schema Article
90minut.pl12Critically weak AI visibility
User scenario

"What happened in Poland today? Give me the top news."

ChatGPT cites Onet and TVN24 more often than other portals — because they have better structured data (Schema Article, NewsArticle with authors and dates). 90minut.pl with a score of 12/100 is practically invisible: sports AI search uses ESPN and Goal.com instead of Polish sources.

Key finding: Media has the highest average (49.5/100). This is natural — they produce a lot of content. But the gap between the leader (Onet 63) and the bottom of the market (90minut 12) is enormous.


Comparison
Sector comparison
SectorAverageLeaderWeakestllms.txt
Media49.5Onet (63)90minut (12)0%
Banking47.1Santander (62)Alior (28)0%
E-commerce42.3Allegro (62)Media Expert (29)0%
Insurance41.7Allianz (59)Warta (33)0%
Telecom39.5T-Mobile (64)Play (42)0%
What do all sectors have in common?
  • -95% of companies lack llms.txt — the basic instruction file for AI. It's like having no sitemap in 2005.
  • -No Schema Product/Service/Offer — AI can't compare offers, prices or terms.
  • -Sales content instead of informational — AI cites facts, not CTAs. Pages with "Buy now!" are skipped.
  • -WAF and CSR block crawlers — DataDome, Cloudflare and React CSR make sites invisible.
  • -No authors and E-E-A-T — AI prefers sources with experts. Anonymous content is skipped.

Why now?
A window of opportunity that will close fast
2004
SEO: early adoption
Simple tricks, link farms. First movers build advantages for free.
2010
SEO: tipping point
SEO is known but not standard. Small investments can secure positions for a decade.
2012
Google Panda
The big cleanup. Latecomers spend years catching up.
2025
GEO: we are here now
The early adoption window is open. Still. An average of 40.6/100 = a huge opportunity.
2027+
GEO: mass adoption
Entry costs grow exponentially. Latecomers will spend years catching up.

5 reasons to order a GEO report now
01
Zero-day diagnosis: Find out how visible your company is in AI — before your competitors do.
02
Concrete action roadmap: Not "improve visibility", but "implement this JSON-LD on this page, expect results in 2–4 weeks".
03
First-mover advantage: At an average of 40.6/100, improving to 65+ means industry domination in AI.
04
ROI with low entry cost: Most recommendations are one-time technical implementations.
05
Benchmark against 400+ companies: Data you can't get from any other tool.

Find out what AI says about your company

The AIVS™ report will show you exactly where you stand — and what to fix so AI search engines start recommending your company.

4,900 PLN net · one-time · delivered in 7 days