Dating Apps

eharmony #5 in Dating Apps

Represent eharmony? Claim this brand for the verified badge — free, and separate from the subscriptions below.

Independent measurement about eharmony — anyone can monitor a brand (brand teams, agencies, competitors). Paying never affects scores, and the ✓ badge stays reserved for verified representatives.

Rank in Dating Apps
#5
Global visibility score
30.9 ▽ −0.4
95% CI 28.333.4
025507510030.9±2.507-1308-01

Shaded band = 95% bootstrap confidence interval. Orange markers = methodology events (model releases, panel versions). How this works

ChatGPT (OpenAI)

33.2
Mention rate35%
Position score0.48
Recommended28%

Claude (Anthropic)

27.5
Mention rate30%
Position score0.47
Recommended11%

Gemini (Google)

25.1
Mention rate23%
Position score0.45
Recommended17%

Perplexity

27.5
Mention rate26%
Position score0.45
Recommended21%

Where eharmony shows up, by the intent behind the question. Every dating apps panel asks the same balanced mix — 10 prompts per type — so these rates are directly comparable. A gap here (strong on recommendations, invisible on comparisons) is where AI visibility is being won or lost.

Question typeMentionedRecommended
Recommendations
What's the best option for me?
84/240 answers35%
30%
Comparisons
How do the top options stack up?
61/240 answers25%
17%
Ready to buy
Which one should I actually get?
95/240 answers40%
25%
Problem-solving
I have this problem — what fixes it?
32/240 answers13%
12%
Informational
How does this kind of product work?
70/240 answers29%
14%

Real answers from the latest measurement in which eharmony appeared — the receipts behind the score.

Claude (Anthropic) · listed #1

"Comparing eharmony and Match, which is better for finding a long-term partner?"

Both eHarmony and Match are legitimate options for finding a long-term partner, but they work differently, so the "better" choice depends on your preferences. **eHarmony** tends to work well i…

Gemini (Google) · recommended · listed #1

"Is a paid dating app subscription worth it for someone in the UK looking for a serious relationship?"

…ll encounter many people who are there for validation, casual hookups, or boredom. * **The "Paywall" Filter:** On traditional sites like **eHarmony** or **Match.com**, the subscription cost acts as a barrier to entry. People who are just looking for casual hookups rarely pay £30+ a month. The user pool on these paid-only site…

ChatGPT (OpenAI) · listed #1

"Is a paid dating app subscription worth it for someone in the UK looking for a serious relationship?"

…ou pick. How to decide - Goal: If you want something serious, use apps/sites that attract people looking for long-term relationships (e.g. eHarmony, Match, some users on Hinge/OkCupid). Paying for features won’t change what people are looking for, only who you can access and how quickly you get responses. - Location and pool…

Perplexity · recommended · listed #1

"Which dating app has the highest success rate for long-term relationships?"

…orted exclusivity or dates leading to a second date.[1][2][3] If you mean **marriage or the strongest long-term relationship outcomes**, **eHarmony** is the most consistently cited winner in the results.[1][2][8][10][13] It is reported at **57%** in one survey for people ending up in relationships for at least some period of…

Domains cited by search-backed answers that mentioned eharmony (79 answers, 2026-08-01). Your own domain is highlighted — presence in the others is the GEO opportunity.

Cited domainAnswers citing it
reddit.com79
youtube.com66
mindbodygreen.com61
mashable.com45
forbes.com41
play.google.com41
glamour.com40
datingnews.com33

helloranked AI Visibility #5 in Dating Apps

<a href="https://helloranked.com/brand/eharmony">
  <img src="https://helloranked.com/badge/eharmony"
       alt="helloranked AI Visibility rank" height="24" />
</a>

Updates automatically with every measurement cycle — copy it into your site's footer or press page.

Head-to-head: eharmony vs Hinge · eharmony vs Bumble · eharmony vs Tinder — or the full Dating Apps leaderboard.

Data from run #88. Methodology