Overview Leaderboard Methodology
Industry Report

Low-Cost Carriers

Airlines focused on no-frills, low-fare air travel by unbundling services, using high-density seating, and maximizing operational efficiency.

Brands tracked: 33
Brands analyzed: 33
Last updated: 2026-04-23
Model: OpenAI GPT-5
Prompts: 263
Total responses: 1,330
Top Brand Overall?
Ryanair
60/100

Highest overall AI Visibility Score in this industry.

LBA Leader?
Southwest Airlines
88

Highest score on the LBA metric.

Authority Leader?
JetBlue
45

Highest score on the Authority metric.

TOM Leader?
Southwest Airlines
83

Highest score on the TOM metric.

Low-Cost Carriers has no dominant brand in AI responses

Ryanair is the top-ranked brand here, but its overall score of 60 reflects a competitive field rather than a dominant player. AI assistants answer category questions about Low-Cost Carriers 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 33 Low-Cost Carriers 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
Ryanair
ryanair.com
 75
36
82
60
2
Southwest Airlines
southwest.com
 88
25
83
57
3
easyJet
easyjet.com
 71
32
78
56
4
JetBlue
jetblue.com
 83
45
41
53
5
AirAsia
airasia.com
 72
23
74
49
6
Wizz Air
wizzair.com
 67
10
69
36
7
Scoot
flyscoot.com
 61
10
62
33
8
Spirit Airlines
spirit.com
 52
4
76
26
9
Frontier Airlines
flyfrontier.com
 63
3
65
22
10
Vueling
vueling.com
 66
5
31
21
11
Jetstar
jetstar.com
 67
2
39
16
12
IndiGo
goindigo.in
 77
0
50
11
13
Alaska Airlines
alaskaair.com
 81
6
1
8
14
Allegiant Air
allegiantair.com
 54
0
37
3
15
Volaris
volaris.com
 58
0
30
3
16
Cebu Pacific
cebupacificair.com
 70
0
17
2
17
Flydubai
flydubai.com
 69
0
6
2
18
Norwegian
norwegian.com
 74
0
5
2
19
VietJet Air
vietjetair.com
 62
0
6
2
20
Viva Aerobus
vivaaerobus.com
 55
0
25
2
21
Avelo Airlines
aveloair.com
 54
0
4
1
22
Breeze Airways
flybreeze.com
 64
0
1
1
23
Lion Air
lionair.co.id
 54
0
4
1
24
Play
createwithplay.com
 57
0
1
1
25
Sun Country Airlines
suncountry.com
 56
0
1
1
26
ZIPAIR
zipair.net
 58
0
0
1
27
AJet
ajet.com
 42
0
0
0
28
Eurowings
eurowings.com
 61
0
0
0
29
Flynas
flynas.com
 50
0
0
0
30
HK Express
hkexpress.com
 59
0
0
0
31
Jeju Air
jejuair.net
 61
0
0
0
32
Pegasus Airlines
flypgs.com
 64
0
0
0
33
Volotea
volotea.com
 52
0
0
0

How is this calculated? Methodology

Every brand in this leaderboard is scored against the same set of 263 shared Low-Cost Carriers 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 263 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 →