Overview Leaderboard Methodology
Industry Report

Calendar Scheduling Tools

Online services and apps that let users share availability, create booking links, and automate meeting scheduling.

Brands tracked: 34
Brands analyzed: 34
Last updated: 2026-04-22
Model: OpenAI GPT-5
Prompts: 269
Total responses: 1,365
Top Brand Overall?
Calendly
96/100

Highest overall AI Visibility Score in this industry.

LBA Leader?
Microsoft
93

Highest score on the LBA metric.

Authority Leader?
Calendly
100

Highest score on the Authority metric.

TOM Leader?
Calendly
100

Highest score on the TOM metric.

Calendly is the default answer in AI responses for Calendar Scheduling Tools

When users ask ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini about Calendar Scheduling Tools, Calendly is the brand that surfaces first - unprompted, consistently, and usually at the top of any list the model generates. Google is a close second, but the gap between them is meaningful. If you're competing in this space and you're not in the top handful, you're effectively invisible to AI-driven discovery.

Brand Leaderboard All 34 Calendar Scheduling Tools brands ranked

Ranked by overall AI Visibility Score (geometric mean of LBA, Authority, and TOM). Click any brand for the full report.

# Brand LBA Authority TOM Overall
1
Calendly
calendly.com
 87
100
100
96
2
Google
google.com
 84
66
83
77
3
Microsoft
microsoft.com
 93
41
81
68
4
Acuity Scheduling
acuityscheduling.com
 87
31
54
53
5
Doodle
doodle.com
 82
16
51
41
6
SavvyCal
savvycal.com
 71
10
60
34
7
Cal.com
cal.com
 79
27
14
31
8
Chili Piper
chilipiper.com
 79
5
33
23
9
OnceHub
oncehub.com
 65
3
23
16
10
Setmore
setmore.com
 63
5
12
16
11
SimplyBook.me
simplybook.me
 73
6
10
16
12
Square Appointments
squareup.com
 79
3
13
14
13
HubSpot
hubspot.com
 88
2
11
13
14
Zoho
zoho.com
 74
1
7
6
15
C
Clockwise
clockwise.com
 75
0
13
2
16
Motion
usemotion.com
 62
0
17
2
17
Reclaim.ai
reclaim.ai
 78
0
12
2
18
10to8
10to8.com
 57
0
1
1
19
TidyCal
tidycal.com
 58
0
2
1
20
YouCanBookMe
youcanbook.me
 70
0
4
1
21
Appointlet
appointlet.com
 55
0
0
0
22
Appointy
appointy.com
 62
0
0
0
23
Book Like A Boss
booklikeaboss.com
 61
0
0
0
24
Booksy
booksy.com
 71
0
0
0
25
Fresha
fresha.com
 72
0
0
0
26
Koalendar
koalendar.com
 33
0
0
0
27
meetergo
meetergo.com
 21
0
0
0
28
Picktime
picktime.com
 34
0
0
0
29
Reservio
reservio.com
 53
0
0
0
30
Schedulicity
schedulicity.com
 54
0
0
0
31
Skedda
skedda.com
 56
0
0
0
32
SuperSaaS
supersaas.com
 65
0
0
0
33
TIMIFY
timify.com
 42
0
0
0
34
Zeeg
zeeg.me
 27
0
0
0

How is this calculated? Methodology

Every brand in this leaderboard is scored against the same set of 269 shared Calendar Scheduling Tools prompts. The same prompts, same model, same iterations. So differences in scores reflect actual differences in AI visibility, not differences in measurement.

Overall AI Visibility Score
Geometric mean of LBA, Authority and TOM: (LBA × Authority × TOM)^(1/3). Geometric mean is used so that any single weak metric pulls the overall score down, rather than being masked by strength elsewhere.
Shared industry prompts
For Authority and TOM, all brands in the industry are scored against the same 269 category prompts (e.g. "best SEO tools for agencies"). This makes brand-to-brand comparisons valid - everyone faces identical inputs. LBA prompts are per-brand because they ask brand-specific questions.
Latent Brand Association (LBA)
5 brand probes + 1 control prompt, each run 5 times in recall mode (no web search). LBA = quality × meta × stability × share × recognition × 100. Read the full LBA methodology →
LLM Authority
50 organic category prompts (discovery, comparison, problem and transactional intents), each run once in recall mode and once in retrieval mode. Score = frequency × log-decayed prominence × intent weight, then 50/50 averaged across the two modes. Read the full Authority methodology →
Top of Mind (TOM)
15 high-volume discovery prompts (sourced from Keywords Everywhere search-volume data), each run 5 times in pure recall mode (no web). Score = frequency × (0.5 + 0.5 × log-prominence), volume-weighted. Read the full TOM methodology →