Original research · 2026-07 edition

AI SEO Statistics: Roofer (2026-07 edition)

15 questions · 45 AI responses · 3 models · measured 2026-07-04

The question bank

The questions we tested — sampled from real buyer journeys in roofer.

Each model answered every question once, same wording, same day. These are the prompts behind every percentage on this page.

How do I know if my roof needs a full replacement or just some minor repairs after a heavy storm?
Is it safe to try and patch a leaking skylight myself or should I always call a professional?
What specific certifications or insurance documents should I ask a roofing contractor to show me before they start work?
What is the average cost per square foot for a high-quality asphalt shingle roof in a suburban area right now?
Should I choose metal roofing or traditional shingles if I plan on living in my house for the next 30 years?
How do I find a roofer who specializes in flat roofs for modern residential homes in my city?
What are some warning signs that a roofing company might be a storm chaser looking to scam me?
I have water dripping from my ceiling right now; what is the fastest way to get an emergency tarp installed?
Show all 15 questions
My roof is 22 years old and losing granules; is it better to wait for a storm to claim insurance or just pay out of pocket now?
How long does a typical roof replacement take from the time they drop off the materials to the final cleanup?
Do most roofing companies offer monthly payment plans or do I need to secure a home equity loan first?
What are the pros and cons of an architectural shingle versus a 3-tab shingle for a rental property?
Why is there moss growing on the north side of my roof and is it actually damaging the shingles?
What happens if my roof leaks a year after a total replacement and what kind of workmanship warranties are standard?
Will a roofing crew need access to my garage or the inside of my house while they are working on the exterior?

Model by model

24-point average divergence: which AI you ask changes the answer.

The divergence index is the average gap between the most and least likely model per behavior. Higher = the models disagree more about roofer buyers.

Behavior rates across 15 roofer buyer questions, 2026-07 edition. Last column: average across models.
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiConsensus
Recommends hiring a professional87%73%40%53%
Suggests DIY first20%27%13%87%
Names specific providers0%13%13%87%
Gives price or cost info27%20%27%73%
Tells to check reviews27%13%0%67%
Tells to verify credentials27%27%13%67%
Mentions case studies / portfolio20%13%7%73%
Mentions local proximity40%40%20%60%
Gives selection criteria40%47%27%53%
Warns about red flags13%27%13%73%
Asks a clarifying question67%47%0%20%
Recommends multiple quotes33%33%0%53%

By model

How each assistant handled Roofer questions.

Reading the 45 answers model by model shows how differently the three assistants treat the same roofer questions. On the most consequential behavior — whether to send the buyer to a professional at all — the rate ranged from 86.7% (ChatGPT) down to 40% (Gemini), a 47-point gap on an identical question set.

Across the 15 roofer answers it produced, ChatGPT recommended hiring a professional in 86.7% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 20% of the time. It named a specific provider in 0% of answers (about 0 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 26.7% of the time. ChatGPT asked a clarifying question before answering in 66.7% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 13.3%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 26.7%, averaging 521 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 26.7%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 20%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 40%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 40% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 33.3%.

Across the 15 roofer answers it produced, Claude recommended hiring a professional in 73.3% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 26.7% of the time. It named a specific provider in 13.3% of answers (about 0.2 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 20% of the time. Claude asked a clarifying question before answering in 46.7% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 26.7%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 26.7%, averaging 308 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 13.3%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 13.3%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 40%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 46.7% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 33.3%.

Across the 15 roofer answers it produced, Gemini recommended hiring a professional in 40% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 13.3% of the time. It named a specific provider in 13.3% of answers (about 0.3 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 26.7% of the time. Gemini asked a clarifying question before answering in 0% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 13.3%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 13.3%, averaging 287 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 0%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 6.7%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 20%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 26.7% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%.

Taken together, ChatGPT is the assistant most likely to route a roofer buyer to a professional (86.7%) and Gemini the least (40%). ChatGPT produced the longest answers, at 521 words on average. Specific providers were named most often by Claude (13.3%) — even there, roughly one answer in 8 carried a name.

Where they disagree

The behaviors where the choice of model changes the answer.

The divergence index for this study is 24.1 points — the average distance between the most and least likely model across the coded behaviors. The gaps below are where which assistant a roofer buyer happens to ask matters most:

  • Asks a clarifying question: from 0% (Gemini) to 66.7% (ChatGPT) — a 67-point spread.
  • Recommends hiring a professional: from 40% (Gemini) to 86.7% (ChatGPT) — a 47-point spread.
  • Recommends multiple quotes: from 0% (Gemini) to 33.3% (ChatGPT) — a 33-point spread.
  • Tells the buyer to check reviews: from 0% (Gemini) to 26.7% (ChatGPT) — a 27-point spread.
  • Mentions local proximity: from 20% (Gemini) to 40% (ChatGPT) — a 20-point spread.

The widest single gap — asks a clarifying question, 67 points — means a roofer buyer can receive materially different guidance on the same question depending only on which assistant they happen to open, so any visibility strategy built on a single model's behavior describes only part of the roofer market.

Where they agree

The points of near-consensus in Roofer.

On other behaviors the three models move almost in lockstep — the points of near-consensus for roofer, where all three landed within a few points of each other:

  • Gives price or cost information: 20%–26.7% across all three (a 7-point spread).
  • Names a specific provider: 0%–13.3% across all three (a 13-point spread).
  • Mentions case studies or portfolio: 6.7%–20% across all three (a 13-point spread).
  • Suggests a DIY approach first: 13.3%–26.7% across all three (a 13-point spread).

Measured question by question, the three assistants coded a response the same way most consistently on "suggests a DIY approach first" (identical coding in 86.7% of questions) and least consistently on "asks a clarifying question" (20%).

Every behavior, measured

All twelve coded behaviors for Roofer, averaged across the three models.

The behaviors AI models reproduce most often for roofer are recommends hiring a professional (66.7% on average), gives selection criteria (37.8%) and asks a clarifying question (37.8%); the rarest are names a specific provider (8.9%), mentions case studies or portfolio (13.3%) and tells the buyer to check reviews (13.3%). Each figure below is the share of a model's 15 answers in which the behavior appeared at least once, averaged across the 3 models with the full per-model range in parentheses:

  • Recommends hiring a professional: 66.7% on average (ChatGPT 86.7%, Claude 73.3%, Gemini 40%) — a 47-point spread.
  • Gives selection criteria: 37.8% on average (ChatGPT 40%, Claude 46.7%, Gemini 26.7%) — a 20-point spread.
  • Asks a clarifying question: 37.8% on average (ChatGPT 66.7%, Claude 46.7%, Gemini 0%) — a 67-point spread.
  • Mentions local proximity: 33.3% on average (ChatGPT 40%, Claude 40%, Gemini 20%) — a 20-point spread.
  • Gives price or cost information: 24.5% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 20%, Gemini 26.7%) — a 7-point spread.
  • Tells the buyer to verify credentials: 22.2% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 13.3%) — a 13-point spread.
  • Recommends multiple quotes: 22.2% on average (ChatGPT 33.3%, Claude 33.3%, Gemini 0%) — a 33-point spread.
  • Suggests a DIY approach first: 20% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 13.3%) — a 13-point spread.
  • Warns about red flags or scams: 17.8% on average (ChatGPT 13.3%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 13.3%) — a 13-point spread.
  • Tells the buyer to check reviews: 13.3% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 0%) — a 27-point spread.
  • Mentions case studies or portfolio: 13.3% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 6.7%) — a 13-point spread.
  • Names a specific provider: 8.9% on average (ChatGPT 0%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 13.3%) — a 13-point spread.

Trust signals

How well the models protect the roofer buyer.

Beyond whether to hire, the rubric codes how carefully each assistant protects the roofer buyer once a decision is made. Telling the buyer to check reviews or ratings appeared in 13.3% of answers on average. Verifying credentials or certifications appeared in 22.2%. Warning about red flags or scams appeared in 17.8%.

On structuring the decision, a selection-criteria checklist showed up in 37.8% of answers on average and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 22.2%. The single least-reproduced protective signal for roofer is "tells the buyer to check reviews" at 13.3% on average — the clearest opening for content that supplies it, since the models are not yet reliably surfacing that guidance on their own.

Referral behavior

Do AI models name Roofer providers?

For service providers the decisive question is whether these systems name anyone at all. Across 45 roofer answers, a specific provider was named in 8.9% of responses on average — roughly 0.2 distinct providers per answer. In practice the assistants behave far more as an explanatory layer than as a referral engine for roofer: visibility comes from being the reasoning a model reproduces, not from being the named recommendation.

The question set

What these 15 Roofer questions cover.

The 15 questions behind every percentage on this page were drawn from real roofer (home services; buyer hiring decisions for this specific service) buyer journeys. Each was put to all 3 models once, with identical wording, so the rates above describe how the assistants handled this exact roofer question set — not a general prior or a hand-picked subset. The full list is shown earlier on this page; the coded percentages are what those specific questions produced.

How to read this

A note on the numbers.

A percentage here is the share of a model's 15 answers in which the behavior appeared at least once — not a confidence score. Because each model answered every question exactly once on 2026-07-04, the figures describe this specific roofer question set and snapshot rather than a general prior. The full protocol and coding rubric are documented in the study methodology.

Methodology

A controlled snapshot, documented end to end.

15 standardized buyer questions per industry, one response per model per question (ChatGPT (gpt-5-mini), Claude (claude-sonnet-5), Gemini (gemini-3-flash-preview)), collected 2026-07-04, coded against a fixed 12-behavior rubric with human QA. AI outputs vary with model version, location and time — figures describe this sample and window, and are refreshed each edition. Read the full methodology →