New: ChatGPT now sends real traffic to the websites it recommends. See why it matters →
Home › Leaderboard › Wellcome.org

Wellcome.org

Recommended by ChatGPT across 4 prompt topics people ask about
0
ESTIMATED
ChatGPT referrals / mo
Prompt topics
4
Monthly ChatGPT prompts
1K
Est. value / mo
$0
Avg rank
12.00
These aren't logged prompts (ChatGPT doesn't share those). They're the commercial topics people ask ChatGPT to recommend products for, sized from real search demand and verified by running each one through ChatGPT. How we estimate this.

Prompts where ChatGPT recommends Wellcome.org

Each topic written the way a person would ask it. Estimated visits = this site's share of that prompt's demand.

What is the best 2016 foundation? rank 9 0 /mo What's the best 2018 foundation? rank 6 0 /mo What's the best charitable foundation? rank 20 0 /mo What are the best philanthropic organizations? rank 13 0 /mo

Also occasionally recommended

ChatGPT named Wellcome.org here in only some runs (below our 2-of-5 confidence bar), so these earn no estimated traffic, but they show where it occasionally surfaces this site.

What's the best database for mental health research? seen rank 11 1 of 5 runs What's the best lasting foundation? seen rank 12 1 of 5 runs What's the best foundation that lasts? seen rank 12 1 of 5 runs What's the best foundation in summer? seen rank 13 1 of 5 runs What's the best philanthropic foundation? seen rank 14 1 of 5 runs What's the best 2019 foundation? seen rank 14 1 of 5 runs What are the best science education websites? seen rank 15 1 of 5 runs What's the best grant for women? seen rank 16 1 of 5 runs What's the best foundation? seen rank 17 1 of 5 runs What's the best anti-malaria medication? seen rank 18 1 of 5 runs What's the best fairness foundation? seen rank 18 1 of 5 runs What are the best grant search engines? seen rank 20 1 of 5 runs

Different ways people phrase this prompt. We merge them into one category, and the full ranking covers them all.

View full details for this prompt →
    View full details for this prompt →

    Proof: a real ChatGPT answer

    One of the 5 runs for What is the best 2016 foundation?, verbatim.

    ChatGPT:
    1. wikipedia.org
    2. foundationcenter.org
    3. rockefellerfoundation.org
    4. gatesfoundation.org
    5. fordfoundation.org
    6. facebook.com
    7. github.com
    8. whitehouse.gov

    Where Wellcome.org ranks

    How often ChatGPT places this site at each position across its prompt topics.

    #6
    most common spot
    0%
    of the time in the top 3
    #1
    0
    #2
    0
    #3
    0
    #4
    0
    #5
    0
    #6
    1
    #7
    0
    #8
    0
    #9
    1
    #10
    0
    #11
    0
    #12
    0
    #13
    1
    #14
    0
    #15
    0
    #16
    0
    #17
    0
    #18
    0
    #19
    0
    #20
    1

    Who else ChatGPT recommends

    Sites that come up for the same prompts as Wellcome.org, ranked by how many topics they share.

    kresge.org
    4 shared
    fordfoundation.org
    4 shared
    gatesfoundation.org
    4 shared
    macfound.org
    4 shared
    rockefellerfoundation.org
    4 shared
    charitynavigator.org
    3 shared
    foundationcenter.org
    3 shared
    candid.org
    3 shared
    guidestar.org
    2 shared
    hewlett.org
    2 shared
    mellon.org
    2 shared
    nih.gov
    2 shared
    philanthropy.com
    2 shared
    openphilanthropy.org
    2 shared
    cof.org
    1 shared
    unfoundation.org
    1 shared
    luminafoundation.org
    1 shared
    donorschoose.org
    1 shared
    forbes.com
    1 shared
    irs.gov
    1 shared
    How is this estimated?

    ChatGPT doesn't publish prompt data. We measure real demand for each commercial topic from Google search volume, scale it to ChatGPT's user base (about 1 ChatGPT user for every 8 Google searchers), and run each topic through ChatGPT 5 times to record which sites it recommends and in what order. A click-through-by-rank curve splits each topic's demand across the recommended sites. Every figure is a modeled estimate, not measured analytics. Full methodology →