Overview Leaderboard Methodology
Industry Report

Icon & Illustration Libraries

Collections and marketplaces offering vector icons, illustrations, and graphic assets for UI design, branding, and print or web projects.

Brands tracked: 32
Brands analyzed: 32
Last updated: 2026-04-22
Model: OpenAI GPT-5
Prompts: 252
Total responses: 1,285
Top Brand Overall?
Font Awesome
59/100

Highest overall AI Visibility Score in this industry.

LBA Leader?
Heroicons
91

Highest score on the LBA metric.

Authority Leader?
Lucide
36

Highest score on the Authority metric.

TOM Leader?
Font Awesome
77

Highest score on the TOM metric.

Icon & Illustration Libraries has no dominant brand in AI responses

Font Awesome is the top-ranked brand here, but its overall score of 59 reflects a competitive field rather than a dominant player. AI assistants answer category questions about Icon & Illustration Libraries with varied recommendations from query to query - users get a different set of suggestions each time. This is the kind of category where mid-tier brands still have room to move up.

Brand Leaderboard All 32 Icon & Illustration Libraries 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
Font Awesome
fontawesome.com
 82
33
77
59
2
Heroicons
heroicons.com
 91
28
59
53
3
Storyset
storyset.com
 75
25
68
50
4
unDraw
undraw.co
 79
26
62
50
5
Lucide
lucide.dev
 67
36
37
45
6
Phosphor Icons
phosphoricons.com
 79
17
65
45
7
Blush
blush.design
 59
16
64
40
8
Freepik
freepik.com
 81
12
35
33
9
Tabler Icons
tabler.io
 80
10
36
31
10
ManyPixels
manypixels.co
 46
6
62
26
11
The Noun Project
thenounproject.com
 77
4
32
22
12
Flaticon
flaticon.com
 83
3
23
19
13
Humaaans
humaaans.com
 75
4
25
19
14
DrawKit
drawkit.com
 53
4
32
18
15
Open Doodles
opendoodles.com
 72
2
32
18
16
Remix Icon
remixicon.com
 80
1
28
13
17
Iconscout
iconscout.com
 71
2
15
12
18
Envato Elements
envato.com
 81
1
5
8
19
Feather
feathericons.com
 73
0
36
3
20
Iconfinder
iconfinder.com
 75
0
6
2
21
IRA Design
iradesign.io
 41
0
30
2
22
Streamline
streamlinehq.com
 38
0
18
2
23
Creative Market
creativemarket.com
 67
0
1
1
24
Google
google.com
 88
0
3
1
25
Iconoir
iconoir.com
 50
0
1
1
26
SVG Repo
svgrepo.com
 61
0
2
1
27
Vecteezy
vecteezy.com
 72
0
3
1
28
Delesign
delesign.com
 20
0
0
0
29
Iconmonstr
iconmonstr.com
 62
0
0
0
30
Iconsax
iconsax.io
 44
0
0
0
31
Lordicon
lordicon.com
 73
0
0
0
32
Lunacy
icons8.com
 60
0
0
0

How is this calculated? Methodology

Every brand in this leaderboard is scored against the same set of 252 shared Icon & Illustration Libraries 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 252 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 →