SetpointHQPro
← setpointhq.comSign in
The SetpointHQ IndexUpdated 2 November 2026

The SetpointHQ Index: UK employer AI visibility, measured.

A longitudinal dataset of how AI assistants describe UK employer brands to candidates. 101 brands, scored monthly against a consistent methodology. The empirical context every Pro report sits inside.

See the ranking Read the methodology
Brands tracked
101
Sectors covered
14
Dimensions scored
5
LLM providers probed
4
Scoring cadence
Monthly
Skip to the ranking
Why it matters

A candidate asks an AI assistant who the good employers are. The answer decides where they apply.

Most employer brands were built for Google. Almost none have been measured against ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity or Gemini, the channel a growing share of candidates now research in. The Index measures it, and Pro shows you exactly where you stand.

AI assistant
ChatGPTClaudePerplexityGemini
Which UK employers are best to work for in my field?
For roles in your field in the UK, candidates usually weigh up large, well-known employers with structured training, clear progression and a strong reputation. A few established names tend to surface first. It is worth comparing pay, culture and reviews before applying.
[Your brand] does not appear. Cited in 1 of 4 assistants.
Same question, two AI-era reputations

Illustrative. Pro runs this across four assistants on your own queries.

Measure
How AI describes you, scored 0 to 100 across five dimensions and four assistants.
Track
Monthly, against a consistent methodology and the 101-brand cohort baseline.
Fix
A prioritised roadmap of what to change. Your team or SetpointHQ Services executes it.
Composite · UK all-sector · 2 November 2026
54.7/100

Median composite across 101 UK employer brands. A cohort-anchored baseline: every Pro report benchmarks against this distribution, not against an opaque internal benchmark.

  • Automotive
    57.0
    n=3
  • Banking
    55.1
    n=9
  • Consumer tech
    48.7
    n=10
  • Energy
    56.3
    n=5
  • Fintech
    53.3
    n=15
  • Healthcare
    59.6
    n=5
  • Healthtech
    34.5
    n=4
  • Legal
    60.3
    n=6
  • Logistics
    52.1
    n=5
  • Media & telecoms
    43.5
    n=8
  • Pharma & industrial
    54.7
    n=7
  • Professional services
    64.1
    n=9
  • Retail, FMCG & CPG
    55.9
    n=10
  • Facilities & contract services
    54.7
    n=5
The five dimensions

Score by dimension. All UK brands. 2 November 2026.

Each dimension scored 0 to 100 the same way for every brand. Composite is a weighted roll-up, with the weightings on the methodology page.

Dimension 01
Citation
27.5

0% scored zero

Dimension 02
Schema
35.0

21% scored zero

Dimension 03
KG · Knowledge Graph
87.8

8% scored zero

Dimension 04
Crawlability
75.0

0% scored zero

Dimension 05
Social
74.0

0% scored zero

The headline findingOne in five UK employers publish no schema an AI assistant can read, and the median brand scores just 35 out of 100. That structured data spells out who you are, where you hire and what each job is, so without it the assistants fall back on guesswork. It is the most common zero in the cohort, and the most fixable.
See your number

Where do you sit against the cohort?

Talk to us about Pro →
The cohort

All 101 brands, ranked.

← scroll →

RankBrandSectorCompositeCitation
2 of 101BarclaysBanking74.350.0
24 of 101Lloyds Banking GroupBanking60.625.0
32 of 101HSBCBanking58.347.5
45 of 101NatWestBanking56.030.0
50 of 101Standard CharteredBanking55.115.0
55 of 101Metro BankBanking54.015.0
69 of 101Santander UKBanking48.322.5
78 of 101TSB BankBanking44.820.0
97 of 101Nationwide Building SocietyBanking33.517.5

Sample = 101 of 103 evaluated. Not measured this cycle: Capgemini UK (page load timed out), Sky (page load timed out). Full methodology and exclusion notes →

Two ways in

Get the next Index drop, or talk to us about Pro.

Index updates

Monthly scores, methodology changes and cohort additions, by email. No pitch.

Talk to us

A discovery call to size your Pro engagement against the cohort baseline.

Talk to us about Pro →Read the methodology →