AI SEO Statistics: Catering Company (2026-07 edition)

Reading the 45 answers model by model shows how differently the three assistants treat the same catering company questions. On the most consequential behavior — whether to send the buyer to a professional at all — the rate ranged from 40% (ChatGPT) down to 6.7% (Claude), a 33-point gap on an identical question set.

Across the 15 catering company answers it produced, ChatGPT 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 0% of answers (about 0 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 33.3% of the time. ChatGPT asked a clarifying question before answering in 73.3% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 20%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 13.3%, averaging 526 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 6.7%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 53.3% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 6.7%.

Across the 15 catering company answers it produced, Claude recommended hiring a professional in 6.7% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 26.7% of the time. It named a specific provider in 6.7% of answers (about 0.1 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 26.7% of the time. Claude asked a clarifying question before answering in 60% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 13.3%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 6.7%, averaging 289 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 0%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 0%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 20%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 33.3% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%.

Across the 15 catering company answers it produced, Gemini recommended hiring a professional in 20% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 0% of the time. It named a specific provider in 0% of answers (about 0 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 20% of the time. Gemini asked a clarifying question before answering in 0% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 26.7%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 6.7%, averaging 246 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 0%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 0%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 20%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 46.7% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 13.3%.

Taken together, ChatGPT is the assistant most likely to route a catering company buyer to a professional (40%) and Claude the least (6.7%). ChatGPT produced the longest answers, at 526 words on average. Specific providers were named most often by Claude (6.7%) — even there, roughly one answer in 15 carried a name.

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

• Tells the buyer to check reviews: 0% across all three models.
• Tells the buyer to verify credentials: 6.7%–13.3% across all three (a 7-point spread).
• Names a specific provider: 0%–6.7% across all three (a 7-point spread).
• Mentions case studies or portfolio: 0%–6.7% across all three (a 7-point spread).

Measured question by question, the three assistants coded a response the same way most consistently on "tells the buyer to check reviews" (identical coding in 100% of questions) and least consistently on "asks a clarifying question" (13.3%).

Beyond whether to hire, the rubric codes how carefully each assistant protects the catering company buyer once a decision is made. Telling the buyer to check reviews or ratings appeared in 0% of answers on average. Verifying credentials or certifications appeared in 8.9%. Warning about red flags or scams appeared in 20%.

On structuring the decision, a selection-criteria checklist showed up in 44.4% of answers on average and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 6.7%. The single least-reproduced protective signal for catering company is "tells the buyer to check reviews" at 0% on average — the clearest opening for content that supplies it, since the models are not yet reliably surfacing that guidance on their own.

The 15 questions behind every percentage on this page were drawn from real catering company (hospitality; 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 catering company 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.