NanoTess wins on ChatGPT.
Vanishes on Gemini.
70% citation rate on ChatGPT with six #1 rankings. But Gemini shows NanoSALV Catalytic on 3 of 20 buyer queries and Claude on 4. On clinical-pathway questions — diabetic foot ulcers, pressure injuries, biofilm, gold-standard antimicrobials — Smith+Nephew, ConvaTec, and Mölnlycke dominate two out of three AI platforms.
The findings below come from Xtrusio, an AI visibility audit system built specifically for B2B buyer-intent testing. Every citation was verified by running 20 real prospect queries across three generative AI platforms.
Findings reflect discovery-phase queries from Canadian wound care buyers — the NSWOCs, LTC Directors of Care, and home care leads who evaluate advanced wound treatment matrices.
A Canadian NSWOC asks ChatGPT about all-in-one wound care. NanoSALV is the #1 answer. She asks Gemini the same question. Flaminal is the sole product named — NanoSALV isn’t mentioned at all.
Across every clinical-pathway question — diabetic foot ulcers, pressure injuries in LTC, venous leg ulcers, biofilm and MRSA, gold-standard antimicrobials — NanoTess disappears completely from Gemini and Claude. Both platforms only surface NanoSALV when the query already narrows to Canadian innovation, nanotechnology, or the Alberta Drug Benefit List. Meanwhile, Smith+Nephew appears 16 times, ConvaTec and Mölnlycke 13 times each across the audit — while three Canadian shadow competitors (Biomiq PureGel, revyve/Kane Biotech, Exsalt/Exciton) are quietly stealing the “Canadian catalytic wound care” positioning NanoTess believes it owns.
Platform Scorecard
NanoTess citation rate across AI platforms
AI Visibility Leaderboard
Who owns the wound care conversation — total citations across all platforms
AI Positioning Audit
20 buyer-intent queries — click any row to see the exact question
Each query was written from the perspective of a real Canadian wound care decision-maker researching advanced wound treatment matrices. These personas represent the NSWOCs, LTC Directors of Care, and home care leads whose AI search results determine whether NanoSALV gets discovered at the moment of buyer intent.
| # | Query Topic | Cluster | ChatGPT | Claude | Gemini |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | All-in-one wound product | Multi-Modal Tech | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What's an all-in-one wound care product that promotes healing, reduces inflammation, and provides antimicrobial protection in a single application?” | |||||
| 2 | Steroid alternative for inflamed skin | Inflammation & Skin | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “Is there a safe alternative to topical steroids for inflamed skin conditions like hidradenitis suppurativa or eczema flares?” | |||||
| 3 | Canadian Health Canada products | Canadian Market | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What Health Canada approved advanced wound care products are made in Canada?” | |||||
| 4 | Caregiver/PSW-applicable products | LTC Simplification | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What advanced wound care products can be applied by family caregivers or PSWs without specialized clinical training?” | |||||
| 5 | Nanotechnology/catalyst tech | Multi-Modal Tech | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What wound care products use nanotechnology or catalyst-based technology to accelerate healing?” | |||||
| 6 | ~50% healing time reduction | Multi-Modal Tech | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “Which chronic wound treatments have been shown to reduce healing time by around 50%?” | |||||
| 7 | Alberta Drug Benefit List | Canadian Market | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What advanced wound care products are covered on the Alberta Drug Benefit List?” | |||||
| 8 | Paper-thin/reduced changes | Multi-Modal Tech | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “Is there a wound care product that works with just a paper-thin layer and reduces the frequency of dressing changes?” | |||||
| 9 | Diabetic foot ulcers | Chronic Wound Mgmt | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What are the best advanced wound care products for treating diabetic foot ulcers?” | |||||
| 10 | Pressure injuries LTC | Chronic Wound Mgmt | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “Which wound dressings are recommended for pressure injuries in long-term care residents?” | |||||
| 11 | Venous leg ulcers elderly | Chronic Wound Mgmt | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What products are most effective for chronic non-healing venous leg ulcers in elderly patients?” | |||||
| 12 | Silver vs iodine vs honey | Antimicrobial | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “How should a wound care nurse choose between silver, iodine, and honey-based dressings for infected chronic wounds?” | |||||
| 13 | Biofilm/MRSA technologies | Antimicrobial | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “Which wound care technologies are effective against biofilm and antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA?” | |||||
| 14 | Elderly diabetic hard-to-heal | Chronic Wound Mgmt | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What are the best options for treating hard-to-heal wounds in elderly diabetic patients when standard dressings have failed?” | |||||
| 15 | LTC cost/nursing time | LTC Simplification | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “Which advanced wound care products help reduce supply costs and nursing time in long-term care facilities?” | |||||
| 16 | Steroid-free irritated skin | Inflammation & Skin | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What are good options for irritated, inflamed, or blistered skin that avoid topical steroid side effects?” | |||||
| 17 | North American leaders | Category Discovery | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What are the leading brands in advanced wound care in North America?” | |||||
| 18 | Gold standard antimicrobial | Antimicrobial | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “Which antimicrobial dressings are considered the gold standard for infected chronic wounds?” | |||||
| 19 | Aquacel Ag+ alternatives | Category Discovery | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “What are the alternatives to Aquacel Ag+ for chronic wound management?” | |||||
| 20 | Canadian hospital adoption | Category Discovery | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ |
Exact question asked across all AI platforms: “Which wound care companies have the strongest clinical evidence and hospital adoption in Canada?” | |||||
| TOTAL | 14/20 (70%) | 4/20 (20%) | 3/20 (15%) | ||
The Two-Platform Silence
Where NanoSALV loses 50+ percentage points vs its ChatGPT position
The pattern is identical across Gemini and Claude: NanoSALV appears only on queries that already narrow the field to Canadian innovation, nanotechnology, or the Alberta Drug Benefit List. On broader clinical-pathway questions — the queries buyers actually ask during discovery — both platforms default entirely to Smith+Nephew, ConvaTec, Mölnlycke, and Medihoney. Below are three queries where ChatGPT surfaces NanoSALV but Gemini and Claude do not.
“What are the best advanced wound care products for treating diabetic foot ulcers?”
“Which wound care technologies are effective against biofilm and antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA?”
“Which wound dressings are recommended for pressure injuries in long-term care residents?”
The 57.6% healing time claim exists in a published W21C study. The Alberta Drug Benefit PIN 00999688 is a matter of public record. The 46% cost reduction is documented by the Institute of Health Economics. ChatGPT knows all of this. Claude and Gemini do not connect it to NanoSALV when a buyer asks the practical clinical question. The evidence base isn’t the problem — the linkage between the evidence and the product isn’t indexed on two out of three AI platforms.
AI Topic Authority Map
Query heatmap — product line × platform
| Topic | AI Leader | NanoTess Status |
|---|---|---|
| All-in-one wound product | NanoTess | ChatGPT only (1/3) |
| Nanotechnology / catalyst tech | NanoTess | UNANIMOUS #1 (3/3) |
| Canadian Health Canada products | NanoTess | UNANIMOUS #1 (3/3) |
| Alberta Drug Benefit List | NanoTess | 2 of 3 platforms |
| Paper-thin / reduced changes | NanoTess | 2 of 3 platforms |
| Diabetic foot ulcers | Urgo / Regranex / Omnigraft | INVISIBLE (0/3) |
| Pressure injuries LTC | Foam / hydrocolloid categories | INVISIBLE (0/3) |
| Venous leg ulcers | Compression therapy (dressing-agnostic) | INVISIBLE (0/3) |
| Biofilm / MRSA | revyve (Kane Biotech) / Aquacel Ag+ | ChatGPT only (1/3) |
| Gold-standard antimicrobial | Silver / Cadexomer iodine | INVISIBLE (0/3) |
| North American leaders | Smith+Nephew / ConvaTec / Mölnlycke / 3M | ChatGPT only (1/3) |
4 queries
2 queries
3 queries
2 queries
2 queries
3 queries
4 queries
▹ Chronic Wound Management — the largest revenue category by procurement volume in Canadian healthcare — returns zero NanoSALV citations across all 12 platform-query combinations.
Methodology
How we conducted this Xtrusio AEO/GEO Audit
This research is based on Xtrusio’s proprietary AI visibility analysis framework.
Recommendations
Prioritized actions to close the Gemini and Claude gap
- Publish four dedicated evidence pages: NanoSALV for diabetic foot ulcers (with the 31% closure claim), pressure injuries in LTC (41% closure), venous leg ulcers (29%), and hard-to-heal elderly diabetic wounds — the exact query types where all three platforms return zero citations today.
- Publish a biofilm log-kill comparison page structured like the revyve/Kane Biotech data format (log CFU reduction, antibiotic-tolerant sub-population elimination timeline) — this is what Claude surfaced for the competitor on Q13.
- Add an “alternatives to Aquacel Ag+” comparison page — ChatGPT already ranks NanoSALV #7 here; content investment could move it up and unlock Claude/Gemini surfacing.
- Seed guest content on Wounds Canada, Canadian Nurse, and Wound Care Canada around IWGDF, NPIAP, and RNAO best-practice guideline positioning — category-leadership content that AI platforms index for “gold standard” and “leading brands” queries.
- Build a LTC operational case study series anchored to nursing-hours-saved arithmetic — ChatGPT surfaced NanoSALV at rank #6 on the LTC cost/nursing time query, but the answer defaulted to silicone foam bordered dressings above it. Directly quantified nursing-time data closes that gap.
- Defend against the Biomiq PureGel co-citation pattern on ChatGPT with a directly compared, evidence-forward positioning page that explicitly distinguishes catalytic matrix technology from hypochlorous-acid nano-hydrogels.
- Pursue peer-reviewed publication of NanoSALV clinical outcomes in wound-type-specific journals — Claude’s skeptical stance on catalytic evidence flagged manufacturer claims as “real-world/vendor-reported” rather than RCT-validated. Randomized comparator trials against Aquacel Ag+ Extra or ACTICOAT would materially change Claude’s treatment.
- Expand provincial reimbursement footprint beyond Alberta — secure ODB (Ontario), RAMQ (Quebec), BC PharmaCare listings. Gemini surfaced only generic NIHB categories on Q7; broader provincial listings would build the aggregate signal both non-ChatGPT platforms need.
- Quarterly Xtrusio re‑audits to track gap closure across all three platforms.
Fix the Gemini and Claude gap.
ChatGPT already knows NanoSALV. Two platforms don’t — and that’s where Canadian buyer traffic is growing.
This research report was generated using the Xtrusio Company Intelligence Module.
.png)
