NameLens

See what AI says about you. Fix what's wrong.

NameLens checks the major AI search engines for your name, scores how you come across, traces every claim to its source, and gives you a plan to fix it.

See a sample audit:

ChatGPT Perplexity Gemini Claude

Private. Your audit is yours alone. Verified. You only ever audit yourself. Honest. Evidence, not guesses.

Scanning AI engines

Querying for Elena Marsh across four engines, then tracing sources…

Filter

Reputation overview

How AI search portrays Elena across four engines, scored on the four dimensions of a personal AI-reputation audit. Every figure here traces to a claim, a prompt and a source on the screens that follow.

0out of 100

Reputation score ▲ +7 this month Improving, but identity confusion still drags the score down.

Sentiment across engines

Share of answers by tone

Who AI returns for your name

Share of voice, name query

A namesake still takes more than a quarter of answers for your own name. This is the identity gap to close.

Share of voice among UK digital-health founders

Share of category answers that name each founder

You place fourth among named founders in your own category. Earned coverage is the lever that moves this, and discoverability is your weakest dimension.

What AI is saying

Engine coverage

Engine matrix

Where you show up, and how, across each engine

The same prompts put to four engines return four different pictures. Visibility is how prominently you surface, position is your average rank when mentioned, and identity flags whether the engine is describing the right person.

Engine	Visibility	Sentiment	Position	Claims	Identity

Visibility and position are scored from repeated prompts, not a single answer. Perplexity gives you the widest, cleanest coverage. ChatGPT and Gemini carry the namesake confusion, which is why their identity flag is red.

Prompts & answers

The real questions NameLens asked each engine, and what they said back. This is the raw material behind every claim: the exact wording, the engine, and the sources each answer leaned on.

Claims & sources

Every claim AI makes, traced to the pages behind it. Sources are labelled by how we found them and whether the page actually supports the claim. This is the evidence layer the monitoring tools leave out.

Source impact

Every source ranked by how much it shapes what AI says about you, across all claims and engines. Fixing the top of this list moves the most. Owned pages are your strongest lever; harmful sources are the ones to remove or correct at root.

Ranked by influence on AI answers

Impact is modelled from citation weight and how often each engine leans on the page

Action plan

Ranked by impact. Honest about effort and eligibility.

You cannot edit the AI directly. You change the sources it reads. These are the highest-impact moves, in order.

62→81

Projected reputation score if you complete the 4 high-impact actions. An estimate, not a promise: AI answers shift on their own schedule.

Monitoring

Six months of re-audits. Is it working?

NameLens re-runs the same prompts on a schedule and tracks whether unwanted claims fade and accurate ones take hold, accounting for the natural variation between runs.

Reputation score over time

Monthly re-audit, averaged across engines

Claims by severity, over time

Critical and warning claims should fall as actions land

Honest note: a single engine's answer varies run to run. NameLens reports the trend across repeated audits, not a single snapshot.