Visibility is measured per country on the same keyword universes as the demand step: CTR-weighted Search share per domain, plus 4,940 AI-answer citations attributed and classified. July 2026.
United Kingdom — institutions, retail, clinics
| Actor class | Share of captured Search |
|---|---|
| Government / NHS / regulators | 18.1% |
| Health-information sites | 10.6% |
| UK retail (Holland & Barrett, Boots…) | 7.1% |
| CBD brands (Cannaray, Love Hemp…) | 4.8% |
| Private medical-cannabis clinics (Releaf, Alternaleaf, Mamedica) | 2.3% |
The UK conversation is gated by institutions: legality, safety and eligibility content is state-mediated, retail is high-street-led, and the medical channel's private clinics are small but own their niche outright.
United States — health info, marketplaces, fragmentation
| Actor class | Share of captured Search |
|---|---|
| Health-information sites | 18.9% |
| Government / regulatory | 10.6% |
| Cannabis-native sites | 5.6% |
| Dispensary-tech marketplaces (Leafly, Weedmaps…) | 1.8% |
| CBD brands | 1.4% |
No national commercial brand owns US cannabis visibility — the market is marketplace-mediated and state-fragmented. The navigational layer (dispensary locators, state law, medical cards) routes through tech platforms, not brands.
The AI layer
Across the 4,940 measured AI-answer citations the institutional skew amplifies: regulators and health-information sites dominate what AI systems cite in both countries, and commercial brands largely vanish. The pattern matches what we measured in the UK weight-loss market — structured, referenced, regulator-adjacent content earns citations; rankings alone do not transfer.
The shared whitespace: in both countries, branded content with clinical credibility — evidence-led, referenced, honest about the licensed core vs the wellness periphery — is thin. That is precisely the content AI answers are starved of, and it is buildable.
→ Next: what the market believes — voices, risks and the licensed core