What this measures
Buyers researching IVF & Fertility in New York City increasingly consult ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity before they ever open Google. The AI assistant returns a short list of names — often three to five — with a recommendation tone. That list has become the new shortlist generator for high-stakes buyer decisions.
This report measures who occupies that shortlist right now. We asked each of the four AI assistants a versioned set of buyer-style questions about New York City IVF & Fertility, parsed the named practices out of every response, and matched them against a pre-harvested pool of New York City Medical entities. The output is a live leaderboard with reproducible methodology, honest confidence intervals, and full verbatim-response traceability. Every ranking on this page traces back to a specific AI response.
The leader — and the gap behind them
In the July 2026 snapshot, RMA of New York: Westside holds the #1 position in New York City IVF & Fertility AI recommendations with a 60.1% share of citations across all four assistants. That's a 2.17× advantage over the #2 practice — a meaningful lead in a category where distribution compounds.
Top-ranked practices — Jul 13, 2026
The top 10 practices by AI recommendation share across all four assistants tested this snapshot. Share is computed from citations in the ranking layer of our prompt set (see methodology).
| Rank | Practice | Share | AI models cited by |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | RMA of New York: Westside | 60.1% | 4/4 |
| #2 | New Hope Fertility Center | 27.7% | 4/4 |
| #3 | Extend Fertility | 13.3% | 4/4 |
| #4 | Center for Human Reproduction | 6.0% | 4/4 |
| #5 | Spring Fertility | 5.3% | 3/4 |
| #6 | Generation Next | 5.3% | 2/4 |
| #7 | Chelsea Fertility NYC | 5.1% | 4/4 |
| #8 | NYU Langone Reproductive Specialists of New York | 5.1% | 4/4 |
| #9 | CCRM Fertility of New York | 4.9% | 4/4 |
| #10 | Manhattan Reproductive Medicine | 4.6% | 3/4 |
The full leaderboard with confidence intervals, per-assistant breakdown, and every recorded citation lives at the live ivf & fertility leaderboard.
Cross-assistant coverage
A practice named by all four AI assistants is a structurally different signal from one named by only one. Cross-assistant coverage in the current snapshot:
- 11 practices cited by all four assistants (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity). These are consensus-tier — the AI assistants agree.
- 10 cited by three of four.
- 6 cited by two of four — half the market surfaces them; half doesn't.
- 10 cited by only one of the four — visibility with a specific assistant but invisible on the others.
The single-assistant tier is where most of the tail sits. Being "recommended by ChatGPT" is not the same as being recommended across the whole AI shortlist — buyers who consult a different assistant get an entirely different list.
What this means for a New York City clinician
If your practice appears in the leaderboard at all, you're in the top 37 practices the AI assistants know exist for ivf & fertility. If you're not in the leaderboard, the AI assistants aren't currently surfacing you when New York City buyers ask.
Two variables move ranking. The first is what the AI can quote about you — your website's ability to answer buyer questions in short, factual, paragraph-level chunks that AI assistants can lift verbatim. The second is where you're already cited — press mentions, directory listings, and peer citations that the assistants used at training time and continue to weight.
Both are actionable. The Viclaro Market Audit ($1,500) walks through the five prioritized content gaps for a specific practice, with named source pages the AI is citing instead, and publish-ready draft copy your team can adapt.
Methodology (short version)
Versioned prompt set of buyer-style questions organized into five conversation-state buckets (Process, Specific Need, Conversational, Style / Approach, Broad Authority). Each question sent to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity with multiple samples per (question × assistant). Every response parsed into a JSON array of named practices; names normalized and matched against a pre-harvested New York City pool. Share = citation count / total ranking-layer responses. Immutable snapshots — every ranking is reproducible.
Full methodology, including bucket definitions, sampling design, and confidence-interval calculation, is at viclaro.app/leaderboards/methodology.
Related
- Live ivf & fertility leaderboard — full rankings with confidence intervals and per-assistant breakdown
- Construct validity of AI citation audits — the underlying research paper
- Viclaro Atlas methodology — full technical documentation