Munch is rarely recommended by AI. Here is its measured AI-Visibility Score, drawn from 4 live AI engines across our 10-category AI-tool audit.
When a buyer asks ChatGPT or Google's AI "what's the best tool for this," only a handful of names make the answer. Munch earned an AI-Visibility Score of 14.8/100, ranking #34 of 256 measured tools. That is below the three-or-so names most buyers hear when they ask AI for a recommendation, so there is visibility upside to capture.
It was never the top answer in any category we measured, so it appears in the list a buyer is shown but not at the front of it. 2 of 4 engines named it, so it is visible on some assistants and absent from others. It competes in one category only, AI short-form video clipping, where it places #5 of 8. A tool named in a single category has a narrower surface than its score alone suggests.
AI visibility is winnable and separate from Google rankings: the engines we tested disagreed on the #1 tool in most categories, so a product can be invisible to one assistant and a top pick on another. The lever is being named where AI looks, mapped in the cross-engine comparison and the source-bias data.
Munch appeared in 1 of the 10 categories measured. Each table is that category's full ranked result, so you can see exactly which rivals the engines named ahead of it and which they named behind.
Weighted score is position-weighted recommendation frequency within that category (a #1 mention counts 1.0, a #2 counts 0.5, and so on), summed across every engine and phrasing. It is not a quality judgement.
See exactly which engines named it, where, and how to raise its AI-Visibility Score.
From the open, CC-BY AI Recommendation Audit: a dated snapshot of what live AI engines recommend, not an endorsement or a quality ranking. Munch appeared in 3 of 550 recorded recommendations. Open data.