Overview Leaderboard Methodology
Industry Report

Razors & Blade Systems

Disposable, cartridge, and safety razors and their blade refill systems designed for facial shaving and hair removal.

Brands tracked: 34
Brands analyzed: 34
Last updated: 2026-04-23
Model: OpenAI GPT-5
Prompts: 269
Total responses: 1,365
Top Brand Overall?
Gillette
89/100

Highest overall AI Visibility Score in this industry.

LBA Leader?
Gillette
84

Highest score on the LBA metric.

Authority Leader?
Gillette
86

Highest score on the Authority metric.

TOM Leader?
Gillette
97

Highest score on the TOM metric.

Gillette is the default answer in AI responses for Razors & Blade Systems

When users ask ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini about Razors & Blade Systems, Gillette is the brand that surfaces first - unprompted, consistently, and usually at the top of any list the model generates. Schick 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 Razors & Blade Systems 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
Gillette
gillette.com
 84
86
97
89
2
Schick
schick.com
 70
30
63
51
3
Merkur
merkur-razors.com
 81
25
62
50
4
BIC
bic.com
 65
15
60
39
5
Braun
braunhousehold.com
 81
18
29
35
6
Mühle
muehle-shaving.com
 84
10
28
28
7
Feather
feathericons.com
 74
7
37
27
8
Harry's
harrys.com
 79
9
17
23
9
Dollar Shave Club
dollarshaveclub.com
 76
7
20
22
10
Philips Norelco
philips.com
 82
4
23
20
11
Bevel
getbevel.com
 72
2
2
6
12
Venus
gillettevenus.com
 78
1
3
6
13
Edwin Jagger
edwinjagger.co.uk
 78
0
26
3
14
Rockwell
rockwellrazors.com
 68
0
31
3
15
Henson Shaving
hensonshaving.com
 74
0
18
2
16
Parker
parkershaving.com
 76
0
17
2
17
Wilkinson Sword
wilkinsonsword.com
 70
0
6
2
18
Dorco
dorcousa.com
 57
0
4
1
19
Leaf Shave
leafshave.com
 72
0
3
1
20
Personna
personna.com
 63
0
4
1
21
Rockwell Razors
getrockwell.com
 70
0
3
1
22
Van Der Hagen
vanderhagen.com
 42
0
1
1
23
Above The Tie
abovethetie.com
 69
0
0
0
24
Billie
mybillie.com
 73
0
0
0
25
Bolin Webb
bolinwebb.com
 62
0
0
0
26
Flamingo
shopflamingo.com
 67
0
0
0
27
Kai
kairazor.com
 65
0
0
0
28
Rex Supply Co.
rexsupplyco.com
 49
0
0
0
29
Skintimate
skintimate.com
 63
0
0
0
30
S
Super-Max
supermaxworld.com
 44
0
0
0
31
Supply
supply.co
 70
0
0
0
32
Toughbook
panasonic.com
 9
0
0
0
33
Treet
treetonline.com
 43
0
0
0
34
Y
Yaqi
yaqishaving.com
 53
0
0
0

How is this calculated? Methodology

Every brand in this leaderboard is scored against the same set of 269 shared Razors & Blade Systems 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 →