The most methodologically rich dashboard in this report. Using Semrush's intent-classified PagesV2 data across the seven brands for which it is available, we map ownership of the four user intent stages. The result reveals a category where Muthoot dominates three of four stages, Manappuram is entirely brand-dependent, and banks have essentially zero informational or commercial presence.
Each gold loan keyword is classified by Semrush into one or more intent categories: Informational (how does X work), Commercial (best X, X comparison), Navigational (branded queries like "muthoot gold loan"), Transactional (apply, calculator, near me). We map these against SERP ownership to show not just "who ranks for what keywords" but "who owns each stage of the buyer journey". Intent traffic numbers count each keyword's contribution to whichever intents Semrush tags; a keyword can contribute to multiple intents, so column totals slightly exceed the sum of unique keywords.
Where each brand's gold loan traffic actually comes from · sorted by total gold-loan traffic · percentages are of each brand's own total
Who owns what percentage of total category traffic for each intent type · 7 brands with intent-tagged data
Muthoot owns the top share of three out of four funnel stages — TOFU (59%), MOFU (71%), and Transactional-BOFU (54%). Manappuram holds only the Navigational-BOFU stage (48%). Yet Muthoot's organic traffic is only 1.75× Manappuram's, not 3× as funnel dominance would suggest.
The explanation: branded search volume is simply enormous. People looking for "manappuram" or "manappuram gold loan" generate nearly as many visits as Muthoot's diverse footprint. That's why Muthoot's balanced-funnel strategy matters — they don't depend on any single intent category. Manappuram does.
For a challenger entering the category (a fintech like Rupeek, or a bank expanding gold loan content), the implication is clear: don't compete with Manappuram on brand. Compete with Muthoot on content. That's where the game is being played.