Updated 29 tools · prices read from each vendor's own page
29 AI Search Visibility Toolsand Vendor Comparison
Three kinds of tool, and most of them stop at the dashboard. GEO-native platforms were built for AI search and measure it most deeply. SEO suites added a module to a rank tracker, which is efficient until you run more than one domain. Content toolshelp you write, and mostly cannot tell you whether an AI cited what you wrote. Every one of the 29 below is placed on the same seven-rung ladder, from measuring a visibility problem to proving it was fixed — and 15 of them stop at rung 3 or 4.
Tools compared
29
Categories
3
Publish a price
22 of 29
Paid entry
$0–$800/mo
Reach rung 5+
12 of 29
Three kinds of AI visibility tool
Every platform here will tell you how often an AI engine mentions your brand. That is the floor, not the difference. What separates them is what each product was built to do before AI search existed — because that history sets the pricing model, the depth of the tracking, and how much of the resulting work lands back on your desk.
Ageo native
GEO-native platforms
Built for AI search from the first commit — prompt tracking, citation analysis and share of voice are the product rather than a module. This is where the measurement is deepest and where the category's money has gone. It is also where the gap between knowing and fixing is widest: the tool names the problem precisely, then hands it back.
Established rank trackers and SEO platforms that added AI visibility to an existing product line. If Google still drives most of your traffic, having both in one login is the efficient answer. The catch is structural: AI coverage sits behind a tier gate, and the billing unit is the domain or the seat, which multiplies badly across a roster.
AI search is a tab, and the pricing was written for a different job.
Content optimisation and generation platforms that bolted AI-answer features onto a writing workflow. Strong at production — briefs, drafts, term coverage, internal links — and weakest exactly where this category is supposed to be strong. Engine coverage here is the narrowest in the pool, and two of the seven do not disclose which engines they track.
They help you write. Most cannot tell you whether an AI cited it.
One row per tool, grouped by category and listed alphabetically inside each group. This is not a ranking — the order carries no judgement, and the “best for” column describes who that tool genuinely suits rather than who should leave it.
“Stops at” is the highest rung a vendor documents publicly. The ladder runs from measuring a visibility problem to proving it was fixed; each step assumes the ones below it.
1 · Measureprompts, mentions, citations
2 · Diagnosewhy the citation went elsewhere
3 · Plana prioritised action list
4 · Producebriefs, drafts, pages
5 · Publishshipped into the CMS
6 · Fixthe live site changed
7 · ProveAI answers beside Google
Only 12 of the 29 climb to rung 5 or higher, and most of those sell through enterprise procurement with no published price. The 15that stop at rung 3 or 4 measure well, many of them plan, several write, and then the work comes back to you.
A · GEO-native platforms
14 tools
A · GEO-native platforms compared on segment, execution rung, price and trial
Tool
Segment
Stops at
Best for
Starting price
Free trial
AIclicksaiclicks.io
SMB / solo
4 · ProduceRung 4 of 7
Solo consultants who want tracked prompts and drafted articles in one plan
$59/mo1 website, 1 country at entry
3 days, no card
Amadora AIOur platformamadora.ai
Mid-market
7 · ProveRung 7 of 7
Agencies and teams that need the fix published and proved, not flagged
Teams producing at volume that can work with three tracked engines
$99/mo$79 billed annually; three engines until Enterprise
yes, full access, no card; 7-day no-questions-asked refund
Scroll the tables sideways →
How to choose an AI visibility tool
Three questions decide most shortlists, and none of them is about engine count.
1 · Who is the bill for?
Segment is the first filter because it governs what the price includes, not just what it says. Enterprise tools — Profound, Scrunch AI, BrightEdge, Adobe, Brandlight, Evertune — assume a procurement process, an in-house analyst and a single large brand. Mid-market tools — Peec AI, AthenaHQ, Searchable, SE Ranking, Search Atlas, Surfer — assume a team of two to ten and a handful of properties.SMB and solo tools — Otterly.AI, LLMrefs, RankScale, AIclicks, LLM Pulse, Frase — assume one person doing all of it.
Buying two steps away from your own segment is where evaluations go wrong in both directions. A solo consultant on a $250 enterprise workspace pays for a governance layer they will never open; an agency with eleven clients on a $29 solo plan discovers the prompt cap in week two.
2 · Where does your work stop today?
Match the rung to the gap you actually have. If nobody on the team can say which prompts you lose and to whom, a rung 2 tool at $79 solves the whole problem and anything above it is overspend. If you already know exactly what is wrong and the briefs are stacked up unwritten, a better dashboard changes nothing — the constraint is production, which starts at rung 4. If the drafts exist and nobody has time to publish them, only rungs 5 and up move the needle, and the grid above shows how few of those there are outside enterprise procurement.
3 · What is the billing unit?
The headline price and the eventual bill diverge fastest for anyone running more than one brand, and they diverge along the billing unit rather than the tier.
Per domain — Semrush's AI brand performance covers one domain at the entry tier.
Per seat — Ahrefs adds $40–$100 per user per month by tier; Semrush adds $45.
Per project or workspace — Peec AI bills per project with users included; Profound's agency structure is $99 plus $399 per full client workspace.
Per client website — Rankability is $99 per active client site per month, with unlimited users.
Per site on top of the plan — Search Atlas charges $99 for the plan and $49–$85 per site for OTTO.
The traps worth knowing before a demo
Two patterns recur often enough to check for deliberately. The first is an entry plan that does not work: RankScale's $20 Essentials ships zero engines, zero credits and zero dashboards; Otterly's $29 Lite carries 15 prompts; Profound's $99 Starter is ChatGPT only with one seat; Semrush's $139 SEO plan shows four explicit red crosses against the AI features. In each case the first genuinely usable plan is two to four times the advertised number.
The second is engine gating. Writesonic tracks three engines on every published tier — Perplexity and Claude are Enterprise-only. Clearscope tracks ChatGPT and Gemini and nothing else, at any price. LLM Pulse sells Claude, Copilot, Grok and DeepSeek as paid add-ons at every tier. Ask which engines are included at the tier you would actually buy, not which engines appear on the homepage.
Where Amadora fits
Amadora is one of the 14 platforms in category A, and the rung column is the whole of its argument: it is the tool in this set that carries a finding through publishing, on-page repair and schema, then reports AI answers beside Google rankings in one week-over-week view. Unlimited brands and seats begin at $179, which is the number that matters to anyone billing per client rather than per workspace.
Where it is the wrong answer, plainly. If you are buying through enterprise procurement — SAML SSO, a signed DPA, a named forward-deployed engineer, SOC 2 Type II on the checklist — Scrunch AI, Adobe Brand Visibility and BrightEdge are built for that conversation and Amadora is not. And the $59 Starter plan is an entry point rather than the product: one brand, one seat, three engines. Everything above rung 4 begins at Professional.
A platform that measures how often and how favourably AI engines — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Copilot and Google's AI Overviews and AI Mode — mention or cite your brand, and which sources they trusted instead. The category is about two years old, and its vendors arrived from three different directions, which is why they differ so much in what happens after the measuring.
+
Is GEO the same as AEO or LLM SEO?
In practice, yes. Generative engine optimisation, answer engine optimisation and LLM SEO all describe the same work: getting an AI engine to mention and cite you in its answer. Vendors pick whichever label suits their positioning, and no capability difference tracks the naming. Judge a tool on the engines it covers at your tier and how far up the ladder it goes.
+
How much do AI visibility tools cost?
Paid entry plans run from $20 to $800 a month, and 7 of the 29 publish no price at all. The entry number is frequently not the working number: the cheapest tiers can ship too few prompts, seats or engines to run a real project, and the first usable plan is often two to four times the advertised figure.
+
Which AI engines should a tool track?
At minimum ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews and Perplexity, which carry most of the answer volume today. Gemini, Copilot, Claude and Google’s AI Mode matter increasingly by market and vertical. Check the number included at the tier you would actually buy, not the maximum a vendor advertises — engine gating by tier is one of the two most common surprises here.
+
Do I need a GEO-native tool if I already pay for Semrush or Ahrefs?
If Google still drives most of your traffic and AI search is secondary, the module in the suite you already run is the efficient answer. Two things push teams off it: coverage at the entry tier — Semrush's AI brand performance covers one domain, Ahrefs' Lite tracks five prompts — and per-domain, per-seat billing that multiplies across a roster.
+
Can any of these tools actually fix what they find?
Seven of the 29 do, meaning they publish, change the live site, or both. BrightEdge, Adobe Brand Visibility and Gradial deploy changes without a developer, all three quote-only. Search Atlas applies on-page fixes through OTTO, charged per site. Profound's agents draft into ten CMSs for review, and Amadora publishes to WordPress and Webflow and repairs on-page work directly.
Last updated . All 29 tools verified against their own pricing and product pages on that date; this page re-validates every 90 days.
