Loading
When an engine names Herd it does so in the most purchase-ready terms in the category, and that almost never happens. The cause is not the product. It is visibility and identity.
The position
Herd is named in 3.5% of tracked answers. Against a fixed set of thirteen competitors it ranks below all ten rivals with enough mentions to rank, on roughly seven citations where the category leader carries ninety plus.
The pattern is not weak performance spread evenly. It is a brand that scores full marks wherever a buyer already knows its name, and close to zero wherever a buyer is meeting the category for the first time.
One asset survives the reading. Where an engine does name Herd, the sentiment and buy-intent are the highest recorded anywhere in the set. That sits on about seven mentions, so it is directional rather than a scored result, and this page says so rather than letting a reader assume otherwise.
Depth 0 to 5 · Target 3.5 · Weighted overall 1.6 (SHALLOW)
One column is not the problem. Technical access scores 3.5 of 5, which means the site is already retrievable and the gap is everything that tells an engine who Herd is and who else says so.
The diagnosis
Herd is coherent on its own domain and incoherent everywhere else. High-authority sources describe the same company four different ways: a security awareness platform, an API security tool, an endpoint protection vendor, and a voice fraud service. Six unrelated products share the name.
Underneath that sits a rendering wall. Every one of the eight blog posts and every case study is painted in by JavaScript, so a crawler fetching them sees the words Loading post and a list of related links. All of Herd's editorial content is invisible to every engine at once.
Technical access is the one column that is not the problem, and it scores 3.5. The budget belongs in structured data and off-domain presence, not in rebuilding a site that already retrieves.
| # | Action | Impact | Effort | Typical time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Ship Organization + sameAs schema | high | low | 2 to 3 days |
| 02 | Create the Wikidata entity | high | low | about 1 day |
| 03 | Verify Bing WMT + IndexNow | high | low | about 1 day |
| 04 | Add Offer schema to pricing page | high | low | about 1 day |
| 05 | Claim G2 / Capterra + review drive | high | med | 1 to 2 wks, then ongoing |
| 06 | FAQ schema + answer-first rewrites | med | med | 2 to 3 wks |
| 07 | Comparison + alternatives hub | high | high | 3 to 5 wks |
| 08 | Deepfake / AI-threat content | high | high | 3 to 4 wks |
| 09 | Listicle inclusion program | high | high | ongoing, 1 to 2 quarters |
| 10 | Wikipedia article pursuit | med | high | ongoing, 2 quarters plus |
Where Herd appears
20 / 50Tracked prompts naming them at all
| Cluster | Buyer is trying to | Coverage | Present |
|---|---|---|---|
| Branded | Evaluate Herd directly | 6 / 6 | |
| Branded comparison | Weigh Herd against a named rival | 8 / 8 | |
| KnowBe4 alternatives | Replace an incumbent | 1 / 7 | |
| Pricing | Understand price and value | 0 / 5 | |
| Compliance | Meet a compliance requirement | 0 / 7 | |
| Microlearning | Modernise training format | 3 / 5 | |
| Best / top | Survey the whole market | 1 / 4 | |
| Integration | Fit their stack | 0 / 4 | |
| Phishing / AI | Solve AI-era phishing | 1 / 3 | |
| ICP fit | Find a fit for their profile | 0 / 1 |
Start your own
An audit measures where you actually stand and names the work that would move it. Nothing moves on its own: the reading changes when the fixes ship. You get the baseline either way, whether or not it flatters anyone.