The League #17 in Dating Apps
Represent The League? Claim this brand for the verified badge — free, and separate from the subscriptions below.
Independent measurement about The League — anyone can monitor a brand (brand teams, agencies, competitors). Paying never affects scores, and the ✓ badge stays reserved for verified representatives.
Score over time
Score 8.2 (95% CI 6.5–9.5) as of 2026-07-13. The trend line appears once a second monthly run lands.
Shaded band = 95% bootstrap confidence interval. Orange markers = methodology events (model releases, panel versions). How this works
By model
ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Perplexity
Gemini (Google)
Claude (Anthropic)
By question type
Where The League 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 type | Mentioned | Recommended |
|---|---|---|
| Recommendations “What's the best option for me?” | 5% | |
| Comparisons “How do the top options stack up?” | 0% | |
| Ready to buy “Which one should I actually get?” | 4% | |
| Problem-solving “I have this problem — what fixes it?” | 3% | |
| Informational “How does this kind of product work?” | 0% |
What the AIs say
Real answers from the latest measurement in which The League appeared — the receipts behind the score.
Claude (Anthropic) · listed #5
"Should I invest in a premium dating app plan if I'm dating seriously in the UK?"
…ing and its premium tier (Hinge+) offers decent value - **Bumble Premium** works well if you want more control over matches - **Raya** or **The League** exist but are selective/expensive—only worth it if you fit their niche - **Muzmatch, JSwipe**, etc. if you want faith/culture-specific serious dating ## My Practical Suggestion…
Gemini (Google) · listed #5
"What's the best dating app subscription to buy if I'm dating in my 30s and want something serious?"
…d toward casual dating, validation, and hookups, even for users in their 30s. Paying for Tinder rarely yields a serious relationship. * **The League:** This is an "exclusive" app for high earners and ivy-league grads. It is incredibly expensive, has a tiny user pool, and is widely considered to be inactive in many cities. ---…
ChatGPT (OpenAI) · recommended · listed #4
"Which paid dating app plan makes sense for someone in their 30s looking for commitment?"
…erm relationships: eHarmony or Match (paid plans) make sense. - If you want a more selective, professional pool and don’t mind paying more: The League or EliteSingles/Coffee Meets Bagel premium tiers. Why those choices - Hinge: built and marketed for people who want relationships, big active user base in the 30s demographic, af…
Perplexity · recommended · listed #1
"Should I pay for a premium plan to get better matches on a dating app?"
…g profile** (good photos, full bio), boosts yield more views but not better matches [2][4]. | | **Match Quality** | **Curated apps** (e.g., The League, Match) use selective admissions and advanced algorithms to filter casual users, leading to higher response rates [1]. | On general apps (Tinder, Bumble), premium mostly adds **qu…
Where the AIs get it from
Domains cited by search-backed answers that mentioned The League (12 answers, 2026-07-13). Your own domain is highlighted — presence in the others is the GEO opportunity.
| Cited domain | Answers citing it |
|---|---|
| reddit.com | 12 |
| youtube.com | 10 |
| facebook.com | 9 |
| bodyandsoul.com.au | 6 |
| forbes.com | 5 |
| mindbodygreen.com | 5 |
| theleague.com own domain | 4 |
| pcmag.com | 4 |
Embed this badge
<a href="https://helloranked.com/brand/the-league">
<img src="https://helloranked.com/badge/the-league"
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: The League vs Hinge · The League vs Bumble · The League vs Tinder — or the full Dating Apps leaderboard.
Data from run #57. Methodology