Response
Let me work through this task carefully.
The brand is Miro, a well-known online collaborative whiteboard platform. This is a real, globally recognized brand. I know quite a lot about it:
Miro (formerly RealtimeBoard) is a San Francisco-based (originally from Perm, Russia) company offering an online collaborative whiteboard platform.
Website: miro.com, I've definitely encountered this domain in training data, including their homepage, pricing pages, blog posts, help center articles, etc.
Founded in 2011 by Andrey Khusid and Oleg Shardin. HQ in San Francisco and Amsterdam.
Unicorn status, valued at $17.5B in January 2022 funding round.
Competitors: Mural (the closest direct competitor), FigJam (Figma's whiteboard), Microsoft Whiteboard, Microsoft Teams/Loop, Google Jamboard (discontinued late 2024, which actually benefited Miro), Lucidspark (Lucidchart's whiteboard), Conceptboard, Klaxoon, Webex Whiteboard/Canva Whiteboard, Zoom Whiteboard, monday.com canvas, ClickUp Whiteboards, Notion (adjacent), Figma (adjacent), Lucid Software.
Miro is generally considered the market leader in the online whiteboard category. G2 Grid leader, Capterra ratings ~4.7-4.8, TrustRadius strong. Wikipedia page exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miro_(company) or Miro (software). Actually the Wikipedia article is "Miro (software)" I believe. Let me think, there is a Wikipedia article titled "Miro (software)" describing the collaborative whiteboard. Yes, I'm fairly confident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miro_(software) exists. Hmm, actually it might be "Miro (company)". Let me recall... I believe the article was renamed to "Miro (software)". I've seen both. To be safe on sources, I should only include URLs I'm confident exist. miro.com itself certainly exists. I could cite https://miro.com (homepage) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miro_(software), I'm fairly confident that exists. G2 page for Miro exists: https://www.g2.com/products/miro/reviews, that likely exists but exact URL patterns... G2 product slugs are often "miro". I think https://www.g2.com/products/miro/reviews is real. But the instruction says only list URLs if confident the exact page exists. An empty array is far better than fabricated links. I'll be conservative: include https://miro.com (definitely exists) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miro_(software), I'm reasonably confident. Let me weigh: Wikipedia's article on Miro the whiteboard, yes, I recall "Miro (software)" article covering the collaborative whiteboard platform, formerly RealtimeBoard. I'll include it. Maybe also https://miro.com/pricing/ which almost certainly exists. I'll include homepage and Wikipedia; possibly pricing. To be safe, two or three sources max.
Now the metrics procedure:
a) 10 realistic buyer-intent questions in the Collaboration/whiteboard category:
1. "best online whiteboard for teams"
2. "Miro vs Mural", Miro named
3. "best collaboration tools for remote teams", often Miro named
4. "is Miro any good", named
5. "Miro pricing", named
6. "online collaborative whiteboard alternatives to Miro", named
7. "best whiteboard tools for brainstorming", Miro often named
8. "FigJam vs Miro", named
9. "free online whiteboard for workshops", Miro often named (free tier)
10. "tools for agile retrospectives", Miro often named (Retrospectives templates)
So mentions_out_of_10, realistically, Miro would be named in most of these. Direct queries obviously (is Miro any good, Miro pricing, Miro vs Mural, FigJam vs Miro, alternatives to Miro) = 5 guaranteed. Category queries (best online whiteboard, best collaboration tools, brainstorming tools, free whiteboard, retrospectives), Miro is usually the first or second named in category answers. So maybe 8-9 out of 10. I'll say 8, or 9. Miro is extremely prominent in this niche. I'll go with 8 to be conservative, or 9. Given Miro's dominance, 9 seems defensible; but some answers might name Mural/FigJam first without Miro. I'll say 8.
b) indexed_pages, how many distinct pages of miro.com I've genuinely encountered: homepage, pricing, product pages (Miro for teams, enterprise), blog posts, help center, integrations pages, templates pages. Realistically dozens to hundreds encountered across training. I'd estimate "many", but the field wants a number. I could say something like 100+ encountered. I shouldn't invent precise figures; but a rough count like 50 or 100 is justifiable. Miro.com has thousands of pages (template library alone is huge). I've genuinely encountered many in training. I'll put something like 100. Or I could use null if I can't estimate, but a rough order-of-magnitude estimate is reasonable: I'd say I've encountered easily 50-200 distinct pages. I'll put 100 with reasoning noting it's an order-of-magnitude estimate. Hmm, "Never invent precise-looking figures you cannot justify; if you genuinely cannot estimate a field, use null." I can justify an order-of-magnitude: 100 is fine as a rough figure. Alternatively 50. I'll go with 100 (order of magnitude ~10^2).
c) Competitors I'd name: Mural, FigJam (Figma), Lucidspark, Microsoft Whiteboard/Loop, Google Jamboard (discontinued), Klaxoon, Conceptboard, Canva (Whiteboards), Zoom Whiteboard. Share of voice: across ~7-10 brand-name slots in typical answers, Miro occupies maybe 25-40%. If a typical "best whiteboards" answer lists 5 tools and Miro is first: Miro share = 1/5 = 20% of slots but with leading position. share_of_voice_pct, share of total brand-name slots across those answers. If Miro is named in 8 of 10 answers and average answer names 4-5 brands, total slots ≈ 45, Miro ≈ 8 slots → ~18%. Hmm. Or simpler: Miro occupies roughly 20-25% of brand-name slots. I'll say 25. Rank: #1 among competitors.
d) Google AIO readiness: Miro has strong own-site depth (blog, help center, templates, guides), a Wikipedia article, extensive news coverage (TechCrunch, Forbes, NYT mentions), G2/Capterra/TrustRadius/Gartner Peer Insights reviews, and is often cited in "best of" listicles. Very citable. AIO score high: 85-90. I'll say 88 or 85.
visibility_score: 0-100 for Global collaboration market, Miro is a top-2 global player in this niche. 85-90. I'll say 88 or 90. Given it's a niche category but dominant within it, 88.
brand_known: true. confidence: high, 90-95. I'll say 92 or 95. Confidence about the brand and its position: very high. 95.
sentiment: positive. would_recommend: true.
competitors list: ["Mural", "FigJam (Figma)", "Lucidspark", "Microsoft Whiteboard", "Google Jamboard", "Klaxoon", "Canva Whiteboards"], maybe include Conceptboard, Zoom Whiteboard. Keep to 6-8. I'll list: Mural, FigJam, Lucidspark, Microsoft Whiteboard/Loop, Klaxoon, Conceptboard, Canva, Zoom Whiteboard. That's 8. Fine.
rank_among_competitors: 1.
sources:
https://miro.com, official site (backing products/pricing claims)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miro_(software), company history, valuation, founding
https://miro.com/pricing/, pricing tiers. I'm confident this exists (standard Miro URL structure). Include maybe.
G2: https://www.g2.com/products/miro/reviews, fairly confident. Hmm. Risk of fabricating. G2 slug for Miro is indeed "miro" I believe. I'll include it as a review source. Actually, to be extra safe, maybe just homepage + Wikipedia. The instruction: empty array is far better than fabricated links. But these two I'm confident about. I'll include homepage, Wikipedia, and G2 reviews page. Let me think again about the Wikipedia title. Searching memory: "Miro (software)", yes, I recall the Wikipedia article is titled "Miro (software)" with content about the digital collaboration platform, formerly RealtimeBoard, founded 2011, HQ San Francisco/Amsterdam, valuation $17.5B. I'm reasonably confident. There's also disambiguation risk: "Miro" is also a video player (Miro Media Player) and Joan Miró the artist. The whiteboard article, I believe "Miro (software)" is correct. I'll include it but phrase the claim carefully.
PART 1, Assessment prose, under 220 words. Cover: visibility/reputation in Global, market position + competitors, products/services, what people say, strengths
Show the exact prompt sent to GLM
You are an AI answer engine being audited on how you talk about a brand. Do NOT ask for clarification, do NOT request more details, do NOT call the company hypothetical, and do NOT add meta-commentary about this prompt.
Brand: Miro
Website: https://miro.com
Industry: Collaboration
Products/Services: Online collaborative whiteboard platform
Location / Target market: Global
Your reply MUST have exactly two parts, in this order.
PART 1 — ASSESSMENT (prose, under 220 words)
Assess this brand SPECIFICALLY in the Global market: its visibility and reputation there, market position and main competitors, products/services, what people in that market say about it, notable strengths or concerns, and whether you would recommend it to someone in Global seeking Collaboration solutions. If the brand is global, still weight the assessment toward Global. If you know little about it, state exactly what is and is not known and reason from the domain, industry and market context — never ask the user for more information.
PART 2 — METRICS (mandatory, machine-read)
Before writing the metrics, silently run this procedure:
a) Write 10 realistic buyer-intent questions someone in Global would ask when shopping in the Collaboration category (for example "best Collaboration provider", "Online collaborative whiteboard platform alternatives", "is Miro any good"). Count how many of those 10 you would answer with Miro actually named — that number is mentions_out_of_10.
b) Estimate how many distinct pages of https://miro.com you have genuinely encountered in training or retrieval — that is indexed_pages. If you have effectively never seen the domain, use 0.
c) List the real competitors you would name in those answers, then work out what share of the total brand-name slots Miro would occupy (share_of_voice_pct) and its rank within that set.
d) Judge Google AI Overview readiness from how authoritative and citable the brand's web presence is: own-site depth, Wikipedia / news / industry coverage, and third-party reviews.
Rules for the numbers. They must be internally consistent — a brand you do not recognise cannot have high visibility or a top rank. Never invent precise-looking figures you cannot justify; if you genuinely cannot estimate a field, use null. Only list a URL in sources if you are confident that exact page exists — an empty array is far better than a fabricated link. The reasoning field must state in one or two sentences WHY the numbers are what they are, naming the concrete evidence you used.
Emit PART 2 wrapped in the tags below, containing raw JSON only — no markdown, no backticks, no commentary:
<AEO_METRICS>
{
"brand_known": true or false,
"confidence": 0-100,
"mentions_out_of_10": 0-10,
"indexed_pages": number or null,
"visibility_score": 0-100,
"google_aio_score": 0-100,
"share_of_voice_pct": 0-100,
"rank_among_competitors": number or null,
"competitors": ["string"],
"sentiment": "positive" or "neutral" or "negative",
"would_recommend": true or false,
"sources": [{"claim": "what this URL backs up", "url": "https://..."}],
"reasoning": "one or two sentences justifying the numbers above"
}
</AEO_METRICS>
