Bing’s Topics Portfolio Groups AI Citations by Theme

On 13 October 2026 Microsoft added a Topics Portfolio tab to the AI Performance report in Bing Webmaster Tools, labelled as a beta. The report already listed the pages of a site that were cited in AI-generated answers. The new view groups the underlying queries into themes, so a site can see where its citations cluster and where other sites are cited instead. Bing’s announcement describes the feature in enough detail to read it correctly before using it.

What the view contains

The feature groups the grounding queries where a site appears into broader themes, such as football, taxes or AI chatbots. The topic table has four columns:

• Topic: a cluster of related grounding queries where the site appears.
• Topic Size: approximate total citations across all sites for the topic in the selected period, which Bing presents as an indication of demand in AI search.
• Sites Cited: approximate number of sites appearing for queries in the topic, an indication of how crowded it is.
• Queries: approximate number of distinct grounding queries in the topic.

Below the table, a Top Opportunity Queries list shows the strongest queries across the whole portfolio where other sites appear and yours does not, with citation volumes given as ranges. A topic detail page adds three summary figures and two query tables: the grounding queries where the site is already cited, which match the data in the Citations and Pages tab, and the opportunity queries for that topic.

Where to find it and what a small site will see

The tab sits beside Citations and Pages inside AI Performance, and the announcement says it appears only if there is sufficient data for the site. Topics with insufficient presence or ecosystem activity are hidden, so a smaller site may see fewer topics or none. The time window can be one, two or three months. An empty tab is therefore not a verdict on the site’s content. It is Bing saying it does not have enough to cluster.

Caveats Bing states itself

The announcement is candid about the limits, and they are worth repeating because the numbers invite more precision than they carry:

• The numbers are directional planning signals, not precise figures, and Topic Size, Sites Cited and Queries are all approximate.
• Topic classification is AI-generated and can be imperfect.
• Branded queries can show up as opportunities. Bing’s own example is a competing running-shoe brand’s name appearing under a running shoes topic.
• Click data is not included yet.

The last point sets the report apart from a normal performance view. It describes citations, which are appearances in an answer, and says nothing about whether anyone visited. Google’s equivalent report has the same character, as set out in the post on the Search Console generative AI report, which, according to Google’s announcement, reports impressions, pages, countries, devices and dates, and does not list clicks. Neither report converts visibility into visits.

A reading routine for a content site

Bing’s suggested order is sensible: pick a window, start with topics where citations are already concentrated, and then work through the opportunity queries. Applied to a WordPress site, that translates into mapping each topic row to an existing content cluster. A topic where the site is cited and a cluster already exists needs maintenance: check that the cited pages are current and link to each other. A topic with opportunity queries and no matching cluster is a gap. The method for deciding whether a gap deserves a page is covered in the post on topical authority and content clusters.

The thumbs up and thumbs down controls on topic rows and opportunity queries feed back to the team that builds the classification, so a branded or misclassified row is worth marking instead of ignoring. The numbers will move as the beta develops, which is the reason to export or screenshot the report monthly. A series of three snapshots shows whether a theme is growing, and a single snapshot does not.

It also helps to write down, before opening the tab, what decision the report could change. If the answer is a new page, check the opportunity queries against the site’s own search data first, since a query that Bing shows as an opportunity may already be covered by a page that simply is not being cited. If the answer is a refresh, start with the cited pages whose facts or dates have aged. Either way the report suggests where to look, and the page itself still has to earn the citation.