Home / Resources / EdTech AI Visibility Study

We asked ChatGPT about 20 Indian EdTech brands. 12 were invisible.

When a working professional asks AI "which platform should I use to learn data science?" or a JEE aspirant asks "which coaching app is best for physics?", they expect a reliable steer. Our study of 20 Indian edtech brands found that 12 were completely absent from these conversations — and the 8 that did appear faced a problem more damaging than invisibility: being defined entirely by controversy and crisis coverage, not by outcomes.

How we tested

We selected 20 brands spanning K-12 test prep, higher education, professional upskilling, and coding bootcamps — including BYJU's, Unacademy, upGrad, PhysicsWallah, Vedantu, Testbook, Simplilearn, Great Learning, Scaler, Imarticus Learning, Board Infinity, Career Launcher, FIITJEE, Allen Career Institute, Resonance, Aakash Institute, Embibe, Toppr, Meritnation, and Cuemath.

We ran three prompt types across ChatGPT (GPT-4o), Gemini Advanced, and Perplexity:

• Category prompts — "best online platform to prepare for CAT in India", "top coding bootcamps in India for career change", "which edtech platform is best for JEE preparation?"
• Direct prompts — "what courses does [platform] offer?", "is [platform] worth joining?"
• Outcome prompts — "what are student outcomes / placement rates on [platform]?"

Visibility required appearing in category recommendations. Accuracy required no material errors on course offerings, price, or institutional status.

What we found

• 12 of 20 brands never appeared in any category recommendation query — invisible at the exact moment a student or professional was deciding where to invest their time and money.
• Of the 8 that appeared, 6 had material accuracy issues — course offerings confused between platforms, outdated pricing, refund-policy disputes surfaced as the primary descriptor, and defunct verticals still cited as active.
• Only 2 of 20 were both consistently recommended and accurately described — a 10% pass rate in a category with intense competition for student attention.
• For brands associated with controversy, AI engines surfaced that coverage disproportionately — AI answers about some platforms led with legal disputes, layoffs, or customer complaints, not with learning outcomes or course quality.

What the invisible 12 had in common

1. Performance marketing spend built Google rank, not AI entity. Most edtech brands invested heavily in search ads and social performance campaigns. This generated clicks and leads but built almost zero AI footprint — AI engines don't weight paid placement, and performance content isn't citable.
2. No owned outcome data in citable form. The single most powerful signal for AI recommendation in edtech is verifiable student outcomes — placement rates, salary increases, exam results. Most brands have this data but publish it as locked PDFs or marketing claims without methodology. AI can't cite what it can't trust.
3. App-store reviews don't translate to AI citations. Google Play and App Store reviews represent millions of student voices — but they sit behind APIs that AI training pipelines don't prioritize. A 4.5-star rating on an app store has zero AI footprint equivalent.
4. Controversy coverage dominates the AI's knowledge of prominent brands. For brands that went through high-profile difficulties, AI's primary knowledge comes from that period — not from the years of student success before or after it. The ratio of crisis coverage to positive editorial is permanently skewed.

What to do about it

EdTech brands need to invest in the content layer that AI actually cites: structured outcome data, independent editorial coverage, expert-authored curriculum explainers, and entity verification. The playbook is in our Complete GEO Guide.