How GM Dealers Show Up In LLMs: A State By State Study
Adriana Dikih
SEO/GEO Researcher
SEO
/
In Florida, 85% of GM dealer websites are cited in Google's AI Overviews. In Nebraska, it's 40%. That's a big gap for the same brands, the same vehicles and the same AI.
In our OEM Deep Dive, we found that the GM stores AI cites are the ones that already rank in Google. But you don't compete with the whole country. You compete with the GM stores in your market. So we broke the same data down by state.
The short version: the gap between states is real, but the state isn't the cause. The websites are.
Methodology
Sample: the same 4,846 Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac dealer websites from our OEM Deep Dive, grouped by the state listed in GM's dealer locator on Oct. 19, 2026.
Data source: Ahrefs, October 2026. US AI Overviews and ChatGPT citations, plus ranking keywords for each site.
States ranked: the 45 states with at least 25 GM dealer websites. Smaller states have too few stores for a fair comparison. They appear at the bottom of the full table.
Measures: the share of dealer websites cited at least once, the typical site's citations, the typical site's ranking keywords, and how much of a state's citations go to its top three sites.
Finding #1: Some States Show Up. Others Mostly Don't.
GM stores in the Sun Belt and on the coasts tend to show up in AI Overviews. GM stores in the Upper Midwest, the Plains and the northern Rockies often don't.
Florida leads on volume too. Its 205 GM dealer websites earned 18,072 AI Overview citations, more than any other state. Texas has twice as many GM websites, 406, but sits mid-pack at 68% cited.
What this means for you: If you're in a low-visibility state, AI search is still wide open. In seven states, more than half of GM dealer websites aren't cited at all. The first store in a market to build out its website has room to stand out.
Finding #2: It's the Websites, Not the Map
It's tempting to blame geography. Smaller towns get fewer searches, so maybe AI just has less to say about them. That's part of it. But the bigger driver is the websites themselves.
In the seven least-visible states (where fewer than half of GM dealer websites are cited), 40% of GM dealer websites rank for fewer than 10 searches. In the nine states at 75% or higher, only 13% do.
Now compare websites that rank for a similar number of searches:
For sites with a small search footprint, location still matters. A thin site in a busy market does better than a thin site in a quiet one. But once a website ranks for 100 or more searches, the state doesn't matter at all.
Across all 45 states, the typical site's ranking keywords line up very closely with how many of the state's sites get cited. The Spearman correlation is 0.90, which is very strong.
What this means for you: You can't move your store to Florida. You can grow how many searches your site ranks for. A GM store in Nebraska that ranks for 100 or more searches is cited just as reliably as one in California.
Finding #3: In Some States, One Store Takes Most of the Credit
Some states spread AI citations across many GM stores. Others hand most of them to one.
Compare Wyoming with Texas. In Wyoming, one store holds 94% of the state's GM citations. In Texas, the top store holds 6%, and the top three hold 15%.
The stores that lead their states have one thing in common. They rank for far more searches than their neighbors. The leading GM store in Wyoming ranks for about 1,360 searches. The typical Wyoming GM website ranks for fewer than 10.
What this means for you: When one store owns a state, the other stores aren't splitting a small pie. They're missing most of it. If a competitor already holds that spot in your area, you know what you're up against and what it took to get there.
What We Are Not Claiming
A few limits, stated plainly.
Correlation, not a controlled test. Bigger search footprints and more citations go together. Market size and search demand also play a part.
We didn't measure search demand by market. Smaller markets have fewer searches, which likely explains part of the gap for sites with a small footprint.
Websites, not rooftops. Many GM rooftops run a separate website for each brand, and each one counts here. States with more multi-site rooftops may look weaker for that reason.
AI results move. This is a snapshot from October 2026.
Small states are not ranked. With fewer than 25 GM dealer websites, one or two stores can swing a state's numbers.
The through-line holds. Where your store sits on the map matters less than how many searches your website already ranks for.
Where This Leaves Your Store
Look at your state in the table below, then look closer to home. Which GM stores near you show up in AI answers, and how many searches do their sites rank for? That's the bar to clear.
A Search-to-Sale Audit shows what shoppers find when they search for your store, your brands and your models across Google, AI search and local results.
Book a Search-to-Sale Audit
Appendix: Full State Rankings
States with at least 25 GM dealer websites, ranked by the share of sites cited in AI Overviews. States with fewer than 25 are listed at the bottom, unranked.
Rank | State | GM dealer websites | Cited in AI Overviews | Cited in ChatGPT | Typical AI Overview citations | Typical ranking keywords | Top 3 sites' share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Florida | 205 | 85% | 70% | 15 | 68 | 19% |
2 | California | 246 | 84% | 55% | 8 | 45.5 | 21% |
3 | Arizona | 55 | 84% | 60% | 11 | 88 | 43% |
4 | New Jersey | 91 | 78% | 49% | 5 | 40 | 45% |
5 | Colorado | 62 | 77% | 52% | 13 | 60.5 | 40% |
6 | South Carolina | 74 | 77% | 53% | 2 | 28.5 | 36% |
7 | Massachusetts | 68 | 76% | 41% | 3.5 | 32 | 52% |
8 | Maryland | 59 | 76% | 58% | 4 | 43 | 48% |
9 | Tennessee | 101 | 75% | 53% | 3 | 34 | 57% |
10 | Connecticut | 47 | 72% | 53% | 4 | 40 | 62% |
11 | Pennsylvania | 226 | 72% | 54% | 3 | 34.5 | 29% |
12 | New Mexico | 35 | 71% | 40% | 2 | 35 | 72% |
13 | North Carolina | 166 | 71% | 47% | 3 | 41 | 20% |
14 | Ohio | 244 | 70% | 50% | 6 | 38.5 | 26% |
15 | Indiana | 147 | 68% | 43% | 3 | 31 | 26% |
16 | Texas | 406 | 68% | 49% | 3 | 36 | 15% |
17 | Alabama | 83 | 67% | 48% | 3 | 39 | 32% |
18 | Michigan | 244 | 67% | 51% | 3 | 32.5 | 29% |
19 | New York | 205 | 66% | 43% | 2 | 30 | 25% |
20 | Louisiana | 92 | 66% | 47% | 2 | 26 | 34% |
21 | Utah | 44 | 66% | 41% | 1 | 27 | 65% |
22 | Kentucky | 85 | 66% | 52% | 1 | 36 | 72% |
23 | Georgia | 143 | 64% | 46% | 2 | 31 | 30% |
24 | Mississippi | 69 | 64% | 30% | 1 | 22 | 56% |
25 | Maine | 30 | 63% | 30% | 1 | 34 | 68% |
26 | Kansas | 65 | 63% | 31% | 2 | 29 | 37% |
27 | Washington | 74 | 62% | 53% | 1.5 | 33.5 | 39% |
28 | Oregon | 51 | 61% | 41% | 1 | 21 | 71% |
29 | New Hampshire | 28 | 61% | 57% | 1 | 26.5 | 73% |
30 | Virginia | 106 | 60% | 54% | 1 | 26 | 41% |
31 | Missouri | 123 | 60% | 41% | 2 | 25 | 28% |
32 | Oklahoma | 90 | 60% | 39% | 1 | 18 | 41% |
33 | Illinois | 235 | 60% | 41% | 2 | 26 | 21% |
34 | Montana | 36 | 58% | 31% | 1 | 22.5 | 76% |
35 | Minnesota | 126 | 56% | 40% | 1 | 25.5 | 45% |
36 | South Dakota | 33 | 55% | 42% | 1 | 15 | 92% |
37 | Arkansas | 79 | 54% | 35% | 1 | 20 | 66% |
38 | West Virginia | 42 | 52% | 33% | 1 | 13.5 | 72% |
39 | Idaho | 35 | 49% | 49% | 0 | 21 | 73% |
40 | Vermont | 25 | 48% | 4% | 0 | 13 | 89% |
41 | Iowa | 112 | 46% | 33% | 0 | 13 | 30% |
42 | Wisconsin | 177 | 44% | 25% | 0 | 13 | 54% |
43 | North Dakota | 35 | 43% | 43% | 0 | 15 | 47% |
44 | Wyoming | 26 | 42% | 35% | 0 | 6.5 | 98% |
45 | Nebraska | 58 | 40% | 22% | 0 | 14 | 40% |
– | Alaska | 9 | 89% | 67% | 5 | 80 | 97% |
– | Delaware | 14 | 86% | 79% | 8.5 | 56.5 | 68% |
– | Hawaii | 11 | 64% | 45% | 1 | 14 | 99% |
– | Nevada | 21 | 86% | 76% | 20 | 91 | 54% |
– | Rhode Island | 8 | 63% | 75% | 1 | 13.5 | 80% |
