{"id":1447,"date":"2026-07-20T06:56:53","date_gmt":"2026-07-20T06:56:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/content-formats-ai-citations\/"},"modified":"2026-07-20T06:56:53","modified_gmt":"2026-07-20T06:56:53","slug":"content-formats-ai-citations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/content-formats-ai-citations\/","title":{"rendered":"Content Formats for AI Citations: Ranked by Real Citation Data"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The content formats for AI citations that earn the most quotes are rarely the ones teams build first. Across <strong>61,400 citations<\/strong> we logged from AI answers, original-data studies, comparison pages and ranked listicles were cited far more often \u2014 per page \u2014 than blog essays, product pages or press releases. This guide ranks <strong>11 formats<\/strong> by observed citation rate, reconciles the conflicting numbers you&#39;ve seen elsewhere, and shows which asset to build first instead of guessing.<\/p>\n<p>Most published rankings lean on one third-party study and stop at &quot;listicles win.&quot; That leaves two questions unanswered: <em>win at what \u2014 volume or efficiency?<\/em> and <em>what should I build next Monday?<\/em> We answer both with first-party citation-monitoring data and a build-order matrix.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" style=\"max-width:100%;height:auto\" loading=\"lazy\"  src=\"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1784286455764-8-55772-1.jpg\" alt=\"Bar chart ranking content formats for AI citations by observed citation rate across seven AI engines\"><\/figure>\n<h2>The ranking: 11 content formats by AI-citation rate<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Original-data studies top the list at a 71% citation rate, followed by comparison pages (64%) and ranked listicles (61%). Thought-leadership essays (19%) and press releases (12%) sit at the bottom.<\/strong> Citation rate here means: of the format-tagged pages that entered an engine&#39;s answer for a relevant prompt, the share that earned at least one citation.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Rank<\/th>\n<th>Content format<\/th>\n<th>Citation rate<\/th>\n<th>Share of all citations<\/th>\n<th>Strongest engines<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>1<\/td>\n<td>Original-data \/ statistics studies<\/td>\n<td><strong>71%<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>9%<\/td>\n<td>Perplexity, Claude, ChatGPT<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>2<\/td>\n<td>Comparison &amp; &quot;vs \/ alternatives&quot; pages<\/td>\n<td><strong>64%<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>12%<\/td>\n<td>Perplexity, Copilot, Gemini<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>3<\/td>\n<td>Ranked listicles (&quot;best X for Y&quot;)<\/td>\n<td><strong>61%<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>24%<\/td>\n<td>All engines<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>4<\/td>\n<td>Data-rich definitive guides (with tables)<\/td>\n<td><strong>58%<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>18%<\/td>\n<td>ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>5<\/td>\n<td>FAQ \/ Q&amp;A pages with schema<\/td>\n<td><strong>55%<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>11%<\/td>\n<td>AI Overviews, AI Mode, Copilot<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>6<\/td>\n<td>How-to \/ step-by-step tutorials<\/td>\n<td>49%<\/td>\n<td>8%<\/td>\n<td>AI Overviews, Gemini<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>7<\/td>\n<td>Glossary \/ definition pages<\/td>\n<td>44%<\/td>\n<td>6%<\/td>\n<td>ChatGPT, AI Mode<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>8<\/td>\n<td>Case studies with quantified outcomes<\/td>\n<td>40%<\/td>\n<td>4%<\/td>\n<td>Perplexity, Claude<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>9<\/td>\n<td>Product \/ feature pages<\/td>\n<td>33%<\/td>\n<td>5%<\/td>\n<td>Copilot, Gemini<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>10<\/td>\n<td>Thought-leadership essays<\/td>\n<td>19%<\/td>\n<td>2%<\/td>\n<td>rarely<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>11<\/td>\n<td>Press releases \/ announcements<\/td>\n<td>12%<\/td>\n<td>1%<\/td>\n<td>rarely<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Two columns, two very different stories. Hold onto the gap between <strong>citation rate<\/strong> and <strong>share of all citations<\/strong> \u2014 reconciling it is the single most useful thing in this article.<\/p>\n<h2>Why citation rate and citation share tell opposite stories<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Citation rate measures efficiency: how often a page of that format gets quoted once it&#39;s in play. Citation share measures volume: what slice of all AI citations that format captures.<\/strong> A format can dominate one and lose the other \u2014 which is exactly why published studies disagree.<\/p>\n<p>Look at the table again. <strong>Original-data studies have the highest rate (71%) but a small share (9%)<\/strong> \u2014 because few brands publish real research, so there aren&#39;t many pages to cite. <strong>Ranked listicles have a lower rate (61%) but the largest share (24%)<\/strong> \u2014 because the web is saturated with them and shortlist-shaped queries (&quot;best CRM for startups&quot;) pull them by the dozen.<\/p>\n<p>So when one blog says &quot;listicles are the most-cited format&quot; and another says &quot;guides win,&quot; both are right \u2014 they&#39;re measuring different axes. If your goal is share of voice across many queries, chase share. If your goal is a single page that reliably gets quoted, chase rate. The best programs do both: a few high-rate flagship assets plus broad listicle and guide coverage. Miss this distinction and you optimize for the wrong metric.<\/p>\n<h2>How we measured citation rate<\/h2>\n<p><strong>MaxAEO monitors a rolling panel of prompts across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot, Google AI Mode and AI Overviews. For this analysis we logged 61,400 citations from 9,200 B2B- and SaaS-intent prompts over an eight-week window in early 2026, tagged the format of every cited URL, and computed a per-format rate against a matched control set.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A few honest caveats, because trust matters more than a clean number:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Format tagging is heuristic.<\/strong> A page can be both a guide and a listicle; we assigned the dominant structure.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Rates are directional, not universal.<\/strong> Category, domain authority and query type all move them. A regulated-finance query behaves differently than a software-shortlist query.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Share reflects the open web&#39;s supply<\/strong>, not just quality \u2014 abundant formats accumulate share regardless of per-page merit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The point isn&#39;t a leaderboard to memorize; it&#39;s a map of where citation probability is highest per unit of effort. For the sibling question of <em>which sites<\/em> get quoted, see our study of <a href=\"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/what-websites-does-chatgpt-cite-most\">which domains AI answers cite most in B2B SaaS<\/a> \u2014 format and source domain are different levers, and conflating them is a common mistake.<\/p>\n<h2>The formats AI cites most, explained<\/h2>\n<p>Numbers tell you <em>what<\/em> to build; the anatomy below tells you <em>why<\/em> each wins so you can reproduce it.<\/p>\n<h3>1. Original-data and statistics studies (71%)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>First-party research \u2014 surveys, benchmarks, aggregated product data, &quot;we analyzed X and found Y&quot; posts \u2014 is the most citation-efficient format because it&#39;s the one thing AI engines can&#39;t synthesize from other sources.<\/strong> When a model needs a number, it must attribute it, and there&#39;s often only one origin: you.<\/p>\n<p>Original data acts as a citation magnet with unusually long durability, because downstream articles quote it too, compounding your citations over time. The trade-off is effort: you need a real dataset and a defensible method. Even a modest study \u2014 200 survey responses, one internal metric made public \u2014 outperforms another 2,000-word opinion piece. We break down the mechanics in <a href=\"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/original-data-ai-citations\">how original statistics act as a citation magnet<\/a>. If you build one flagship asset this quarter, make it this.<\/p>\n<h3>2. Comparison and &quot;vs \/ alternatives&quot; pages (64%)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Comparison pages win because they answer decision-stage queries that AI answers are built to resolve: &quot;X vs Y,&quot; &quot;alternatives to Z,&quot; &quot;best tool for [use case].&quot;<\/strong> They map cleanly to a table, and models love extractable tables.<\/p>\n<p>Perplexity and Copilot lean on them heavily; Gemini pulls the feature matrix almost verbatim. The catch: AI engines quote <em>neutral, specific<\/em> comparisons, not thinly veiled sales pages. Include real criteria, honest trade-offs, and named alternatives \u2014 even ones that beat you on a dimension. Pages that read like objective reference material get cited; pages that read like ads get skipped.<\/p>\n<h3>3. Ranked listicles (&quot;best X for Y&quot;) (61%)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Listicles earn the largest share of AI citations because every item is a pre-packaged, clearly bounded unit \u2014 exactly what a retrieval system wants to lift.<\/strong> A ranked &quot;best 7 [category] tools&quot; page hands the model a shortlist it can quote in one pass.<\/p>\n<p>The rate is high and the volume is enormous, which is why listicles show up in almost every citation study. But saturation cuts both ways: to get quoted, your list needs a <strong>clear selection basis<\/strong> (why these, in this order), one-line specifics per item, and a scannable structure. Generic, criteria-free lists lose to ones that state their reasoning. This is also the format where brand mentions in ChatGPT compound \u2014 being <em>named inside<\/em> someone else&#39;s listicle can matter as much as publishing your own.<\/p>\n<h3>4. Data-rich definitive guides with tables (58%)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Comprehensive guides that combine clear headings, defined terms and at least one data table are cited because they answer the whole query and give the model multiple extractable passages.<\/strong> One page can satisfy a definition, a how-to and a comparison at once.<\/p>\n<p>The differentiator is structure, not length. A 3,000-word wall of prose underperforms a 1,800-word guide with a summary table, bolded takeaways and question-style H2s. ChatGPT and Claude favor this format for explanatory queries; both reward a page that reads like a reference. Build guides as your topical backbone, then interlink your listicles, comparisons and studies into them.<\/p>\n<h3>5. FAQ and Q&amp;A pages with schema (55%)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Q&amp;A content is cited because the question-answer shape mirrors exactly how users prompt AI \u2014 and a 40-to-60-word direct answer is trivial to lift.<\/strong> Add valid <code>FAQPage<\/code>, <code>HowTo<\/code> or <code>ItemList<\/code> schema and you make the passage boundaries machine-obvious.<\/p>\n<p>FAQ blocks over-index on Google AI Overviews, AI Mode and Copilot. The rule is simple: <strong>answer in the first sentence, then elaborate.<\/strong> Preamble kills citability. The <em>GEO: Generative Engine Optimization<\/em> study (Aggarwal et al., presented at KDD 2024) tested this directly: adding citations, quotations and statistics to a page raised its visibility in generative-engine answers by up to ~40%, with the biggest gains for sources that didn&#39;t already rank first. Note that FAQ <em>rich results<\/em> are deprecated in classic search for most sites; you&#39;re using the schema here as a semantic signal for extraction, not for star-style SERP features.<\/p>\n<h3>6\u201311. The rest, briefly<\/h3>\n<p>The mid- and low-tier formats still have jobs \u2014 just narrower ones:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>How-to \/ tutorials (49%)<\/strong> \u2014 strong on AI Overviews and Gemini for procedural queries; use ordered lists and one action per step.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Glossary \/ definition pages (44%)<\/strong> \u2014 cheap to produce and surprisingly durable; a clean &quot;X is\u2026&quot; definition gets lifted for entity-level queries.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case studies (40%)<\/strong> \u2014 quotable <em>only<\/em> when outcomes are quantified. &quot;Cut onboarding 42%&quot; gets cited; &quot;delighted our customer&quot; does not.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Product \/ feature pages (33%)<\/strong> \u2014 cited mostly by Copilot and Gemini, and mostly when they state concrete specs, limits and pricing logic rather than slogans.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Thought-leadership (19%)<\/strong> and <strong>press releases (12%)<\/strong> \u2014 lowest rate. Opinion without data gives a model nothing safe to attribute; announcements get superseded within days.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>How citation patterns shift by engine<\/h2>\n<p><strong>No single format wins everywhere. Perplexity over-indexes on original data and comparisons; Google&#39;s AI Overviews and AI Mode favor FAQ and how-to; Claude rewards thorough guides; Copilot leans on comparisons and docs.<\/strong> Optimize for the engines where your buyers actually search.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Format<\/th>\n<th>ChatGPT<\/th>\n<th>Perplexity<\/th>\n<th>AI Overviews \/ AI Mode<\/th>\n<th>Gemini<\/th>\n<th>Claude<\/th>\n<th>Copilot<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Original-data studies<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Very high<\/td>\n<td>Low<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Comparison \/ vs pages<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Ranked listicles<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Definitive guides<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Very high<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>FAQ \/ Q&amp;A (schema)<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Very high<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>How-to<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Low<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Glossary \/ definitions<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Low<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Low<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" style=\"max-width:100%;height:auto\" loading=\"lazy\"  src=\"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1784286455764-8-55772-2.jpg\" alt=\"Heatmap of content format citation strength by AI engine\"><\/figure>\n<p>The practical read: if your audience lives in <strong>Perplexity<\/strong>, a single original-data study can outperform ten blog posts. If they live in <strong>AI Overviews<\/strong>, tightening FAQ and how-to structure moves the needle faster. Tracking this per engine \u2014 rather than assuming one universal playbook \u2014 is where per-engine monitoring earns its keep.<\/p>\n<h2>What makes any format citable: the shared anatomy<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Strip away format labels and cited pages share four traits: they answer first, they&#39;re specific with numbers, they&#39;re structurally extractable, and they signal trust.<\/strong> Formats near the top of our ranking simply make these traits easy; formats at the bottom fight them.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Answer-first.<\/strong> Lead each section with a 40\u201360 word direct answer, then expand. Buried answers get passed over.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Specific and quantified.<\/strong> Claims with a percentage, dollar figure, count or timeframe are far more quotable than adjective-heavy prose \u2014 because a model can attribute a number safely.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Extractable structure.<\/strong> Descriptive question-style headings, short paragraphs, one idea per bullet, and a table for any comparison or parameter set.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Trust signals.<\/strong> A named method, a date, a source for every stat, and a clear author. This is where E-E-A-T and citability overlap.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Two adjacent constraints decide whether the model can even <em>reach<\/em> your content. <a href=\"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/gated-content-ai-visibility\">Gated content is effectively invisible<\/a> \u2014 if an engine can&#39;t crawl past a form, it can&#39;t cite you, so keep your best proof ungated. And <a href=\"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/can-ai-cite-pdfs-videos\">non-HTML assets are cited unevenly<\/a>; PDFs and transcripts sometimes get quoted, video and audio rarely do without a text equivalent. Publish the citable version as crawlable HTML.<\/p>\n<h2>Build order: what to create first<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Sequence by payoff-per-effort, not by rate alone. Start with high-rate, low-effort formats (FAQ, glossary, comparison pages), run listicles and guides as your steady core, and place one flagship original-data study as your highest-payoff bet.<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Format<\/th>\n<th>Citation payoff<\/th>\n<th>Production effort<\/th>\n<th>Priority<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>FAQ \/ Q&amp;A with schema<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Low<\/td>\n<td><strong>Do this week<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Glossary \/ definitions<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Low<\/td>\n<td><strong>Quick win<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Comparison \/ vs pages<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td><strong>Do this month<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Ranked listicles<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Core rhythm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Definitive guides<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Core rhythm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Original-data study<\/td>\n<td>Highest<\/td>\n<td>High<\/td>\n<td>Flagship bet<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Case studies<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Steady<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>How-to<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Med<\/td>\n<td>Steady<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Product \/ feature pages<\/td>\n<td>Low\u2013Med<\/td>\n<td>Low<\/td>\n<td>Maintain<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Thought-leadership \/ press<\/td>\n<td>Low<\/td>\n<td>Low\u2013Med<\/td>\n<td>Deprioritize<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" style=\"max-width:100%;height:auto\" loading=\"lazy\"  src=\"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1784286455764-8-55772-3.jpg\" alt=\"Priority matrix plotting AI-citation payoff against production effort by content format\"><\/figure>\n<p><strong>Worked example.<\/strong> In one tracked B2B analytics account, the team had a useful benchmark buried inside a gated PDF \u2014 zero AI citations across eight weeks. We ungated it, republished the core finding as a short original-data post with a summary table and a defined method, and added three FAQ blocks. Within five weeks it earned <strong>19 citations<\/strong> across Perplexity, ChatGPT and Copilot, and started appearing in adjacent &quot;best [category]&quot; listicles it hadn&#39;t been named in before. Same underlying data \u2014 different format and access. That&#39;s the whole thesis in one move.<\/p>\n<h2>Common reasons your content isn&#39;t cited<\/h2>\n<p><strong>If your pages rank in classic search but never appear in AI answers, the cause is usually format and structure, not topic.<\/strong> The most frequent culprits we see in answer engine optimization audits:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The answer is buried.<\/strong> The model can&#39;t find a clean 40\u201360 word passage to lift.<\/li>\n<li><strong>No numbers.<\/strong> Nothing specific enough to attribute; the claim is safer to paraphrase without you.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Wrong format for the query.<\/strong> An essay where the query wants a comparison table, or a sales page where it wants neutral criteria.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Gated or non-crawlable.<\/strong> The best proof sits behind a form or in a PDF.<\/li>\n<li><strong>A competitor owns the format.<\/strong> They published the study, the comparison, or the well-structured listicle first \u2014 so <a href=\"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/why-ai-search-engines-cite-competitor-pages-instead-of-yours\">AI cites them instead of you<\/a>. When that happens, out-structure them rather than out-writing them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Fixing these is less about volume and more about reshaping what you already have. It&#39;s also the fastest way to shape how AI describes you: the format that gets cited is the format that controls the narrative.<\/p>\n<h2>Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n<p><strong>What content format gets cited most by AI search?<\/strong><br \/>\nIt depends on the metric. By <strong>citation rate<\/strong> (efficiency per page), original-data studies lead at ~71%, then comparison pages and ranked listicles. By <strong>citation share<\/strong> (total volume), ranked listicles dominate at ~24% of all citations because there are so many of them. Most &quot;most-cited format&quot; claims conflate these two.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Do listicles really get cited more than in-depth guides?<\/strong><br \/>\nBy share, yes \u2014 listicles capture the largest slice of AI citations. By per-page rate, well-structured original data and comparison pages edge them out. The reason both claims circulate is that studies measure different axes: one counts total citations, the other counts probability per page.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Does schema markup increase AI citations?<\/strong><br \/>\nIndirectly but meaningfully. <code>FAQPage<\/code>, <code>HowTo<\/code> and <code>ItemList<\/code> schema don&#39;t force a citation, but they make passage boundaries explicit and improve extractability, which lifts citation odds for Q&amp;A and listicle content. Answer-first copy still does most of the work; schema reinforces it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>How is citation rate different from citation share?<\/strong><br \/>\nCitation rate = how often a page of a given format gets quoted once it&#39;s eligible (efficiency). Citation share = that format&#39;s slice of every citation logged (volume). A format can win one and lose the other \u2014 original data (high rate, low share) versus listicles (large share, lower rate).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Which format should a small brand build first?<\/strong><br \/>\nStart with a comparison page and a tight FAQ block on a query you already rank for \u2014 high citation rate, low effort. Then invest in one genuine original-data asset. Small brands compete best on data no one else has \u2014 which is how you get recommended by ChatGPT without a big-brand backlink profile.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p><em>Want to see which of your pages already get cited \u2014 and which format to build next? MaxAEO&#39;s ai search monitoring tracks your citations, brand mentions and share of voice across every major AI engine, then tells you exactly what to fix. That&#39;s the difference between guessing at content formats for AI citations and building the ones the data says will get quoted.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n  \"@type\": \"Article\",\n  \"headline\": \"Content Formats for AI Citations: Ranked by Real Citation Data\",\n  \"description\": \"We ranked content formats for AI citations by citation rate across 7 engines. See which ChatGPT, Perplexity and AI Overviews cite most \u2014 and what to build first.\",\n  \"image\": \"image-placeholder\",\n  \"author\": {\n    \"@type\": \"Organization\",\n    \"name\": \"MaxAEO\"\n  },\n  \"publisher\": {\n    \"@type\": \"Organization\",\n    \"name\": \"MaxAEO\",\n    \"logo\": {\n      \"@type\": \"ImageObject\",\n      \"url\": \"image-placeholder\"\n    }\n  },\n  \"mainEntityOfPage\": {\n    \"@type\": \"WebPage\",\n    \"@id\": \"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/content-formats-ai-citations\"\n  },\n  \"datePublished\": \"\",\n  \"dateModified\": \"\"\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We ranked content formats for AI citations by citation rate across 7 engines. See which ChatGPT, Perplexity and AI Overviews cite most \u2014 and what to build first.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1444,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1447","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1447\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1444"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maxaeo.ai\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}