Check this page with an assistantOpens a chat asking it to summarise this article and name the evidence behind each claim.
Claude opens with the prompt on your clipboard: Anthropic does not support prefilled prompts on the web, and we would rather copy it than ship a button that drops it.
Why This List Shows Its Working
Every roundup in this category opens by saying it scored the tools on five criteria, and then never shows a score. The tables are qualitative (Yes, No, Deep, Partial) which makes them unfalsifiable by construction. This one publishes the rubric, the per-criterion numbers, the source behind each price, and the date we read it.
One disclosure before anything else: SearchHandled is our product and it is in this table. It came fourth. That is not modesty as a rhetorical device: it is what happens when you fix the criteria before you score, and it is the reason this list is worth more to you than one where the author happens to win. The two rows we lose badly on, engine coverage and track record, are stated in the same plain terms as everyone else's weaknesses.
And the limit that decides how much weight to put on all of it: we did not buy and run these products. This scores documented capability from published evidence, captured 2026-08-04. Output quality, data accuracy, and support can only be judged from inside a paid account, so they are not scored here at all rather than guessed at. If you want the buyer's questions to ask on a demo call, our AI visibility tool checklist is the companion to this page.
The Rubric, Published Before the Scores
Six criteria, each scored 0–5, each drawn from a complaint buyers actually voiced rather than from a feature list. They are weighted equally on purpose, so you can ignore the total and add up only the columns you care about.
| Criterion | What a 5 means | Why it is on the list |
|---|---|---|
| Method disclosure | Publishes runs per prompt, the engines sampled, the model version and reasoning mode recorded per observation, and the limits of the instrument. | Two tools reporting 'AI visibility' are usually measuring different things with unstated rulers. Re-running one prompt has been observed to leave only a fraction of citations intact, so a number without a run count is not a measurement. |
| Engine coverage | Samples answers across most major assistants, not one. | Cited-domain overlap between engines is low. A ChatGPT-only number is a ChatGPT number, and reading it as 'AI visibility' overstates it. |
| Diagnoses the cause | Finds the crawl, indexation, structure, or entity defect underneath the invisibility, not just the symptom. | An agency that sold three GEO audits found all three clients had broken technical SEO; fixing that fixed the 'AI visibility'. A tool that only reports absence sends you looking for an AI problem you may not have. |
| Ships the fix | Produces and publishes the corrected page, with a gate on what ships. | The most common failure in this category is a subscription that reports a gap nobody has time to close. Measurement without execution is an expensive dashboard. |
| Price transparency | Full price published, self-serve, with the usage cap it buys stated. | 'Contact sales' and stacked add-ons hide the real number until you are in a call. A published price with a stated cap is a fact you can compare. |
| Track record | Years in market, data at scale, and public evidence it works. | The criterion that most disadvantages new entrants, including us. A buyer taking a risk on a young product should see that priced in rather than argued away. |
Three of these six (method disclosure, diagnosis, and price transparency) are criteria we expected to do well on, and we chose them. Two of them, engine coverage and track record, are criteria we lose badly on, and they carry identical weight. A reader who only wants measurement should read the engine-coverage and method columns and disregard our total entirely.
The Scorecard
Sorted by points, with coverage shown. A dash means we could not establish that fact and did not invent one; a tool scored on four of six criteria has a total that is not comparable to a tool scored on all six, which is why coverage sits next to the score rather than buried in a footnote.
| Tool | Method disclosure | Engine coverage | Diagnoses the cause | Ships the fix | Price transparency | Track record | Total | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Profound | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 22/30 | 6/6 |
| Semrush AI Toolkit | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 19/30 | 6/6 |
| Surfer | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 19/30 | 6/6 |
| SearchHandled (ours) | 3 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 18/30 | 6/6 |
| Ahrefs Brand Radar | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 18/30 | 6/6 |
| Writesonic | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 16/30 | 6/6 |
| Clearscope | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 15/30 | 6/6 |
| AthenaHQ | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 14/30 | 6/6 |
| Google Search Console | – | 0 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 14/25 | 5/6 |
| Enrich Labs (Sam) | 0 | – | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 12/25 | 5/6 |
| Peec AI | – | – | 1 | 0 | – | 2 | 3/15 | 3/6 |
Scores reflect documented capability as published on 2026-08-04, not tested output. Hover any cell for the evidence behind it.
Three Weightings, Because "Best" Depends on What You Are Buying
The scorecard above weights every criterion equally. That is a choice, not a neutral fact, so here are the same unchanged scores under three weightings a real buyer might apply, including the one that favours us, labelled as such.
Equal weight
The published default. Every criterion counts once; no thumb on the scale.
- Profound73.3%
- Semrush AI Toolkit63.3%
- Surfer63.3%
- SearchHandled (ours)60%
- Ahrefs Brand Radar60%
Buying measurement
You do not yet know whether assistants cite you, and finding out is the purchase. Engine coverage and method disclosure count triple.
- Profound76%
- Ahrefs Brand Radar60%
- Semrush AI Toolkit58.0%
- Surfer58.0%
- AthenaHQ52%
Buying outcomes · favours us
You already know you are absent and need the cause found and the page shipped. Diagnosis and execution count double.
- Profound67.5%
- SearchHandled (ours)67.5%
- Semrush AI Toolkit62.5%
- Surfer62.5%
- Ahrefs Brand Radar57.5%
Read those three results together, because the pattern in them is the actual finding. Weight the rubric toward measurement and we fall to sixth at 48%, below AthenaHQ, a much smaller product, because we sample nothing by default. Weight it toward outcomes, which is the weighting built to favour us, and we reach 67.5% and tie Profound exactly rather than beating it. There is no weighting on this page under which we come first outright. If there were, you should distrust the page.
Prices, With the Source Grade Attached
A price read off the vendor's own page is stronger evidence than the same number repeated by a review site, and the table says which one each is. Six prices here were read off the vendor's own page, three are third-party, one is our own, and one is marked unverified, because that is what we actually had.
| Tool | Entry price | What it buys | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Profound | $99/mo | Starter $99/mo (ChatGPT only, 50 prompts, 1 seat) · Growth $399/mo (3 engines, 100 prompts, 3 seats) · Enterprise custom (up to 9 engines). | Vendor page |
| Semrush AI Toolkit | $99/mo add-on | Reported at $99/mo per domain on top of a core Semrush plan, covering 25 tracked prompts; extra prompts and domains priced separately. Not read from a vendor page. | Third-party |
| Surfer | $49/mo | Discovery $49 · Standard $99 (25 AI prompts, weekly) · Pro $182 (50, daily) · Peace of Mind $299 (100, daily) · AI Search Analytics $158 standalone · Enterprise $999. Billed yearly. | Vendor page |
| SearchHandled | $79/site/mo | Starter $79 (12 verified assets/mo) · Growth $149 (30) · Pro $299 (60). Per site; volume discounts from 2 sites; above 14 sites is a sales conversation. | First-party |
| Ahrefs Brand Radar | $199/platform/mo | Reported at $199 per platform per month, or ~$699 bundled, on top of a $129 base plan. All-in cost lands well above the headline. Not read from a vendor page. | Third-party |
| Writesonic | ~$79/mo (GEO) | Reported around $79/mo for the GEO starter tier, with separate general writing plans. Not read from a vendor page. | Third-party |
| Clearscope | $129/mo | Essentials $129 · Business $399 · Enterprise custom. Prompt tracking across ChatGPT and Gemini is included on all tiers. | Vendor page |
| AthenaHQ | Free tier, then $295/mo | Essential free ($25 credit, 5 engines, 300 credits) · Starter $295/mo (9+ engines including Claude, Copilot and Grok, 3,600 credits) · Enterprise custom. | Vendor page |
| Google Search Console | Free | Free, and the only tool here that reports ground truth rather than a sample. | Vendor page |
| Enrich Labs (Sam) | $39/mo | Starter $39 (10 SEO/GEO articles/mo) · Pro $99 (120) · Pro+ $199 (360) · Enterprise custom. 7-day free trial. Read from the vendor's own agent page. | Vendor page |
| Peec AI | Not verified | Four tiers (Starter, Pro, Advanced, Enterprise) are named on the vendor pricing page, but the amounts did not render when we read it on the capture date. A third-party source reports entry pricing around €89/mo. We are not repeating that as a fact. | Unverified |
Tool by Tool: Who It Fits and Where It Fails
In scorecard order. Every entry states a weakness, including ours, and the weakness is the part worth reading: it is the line vendors usually delete.
- Profound · 22/30
AI-visibility measurement. $99/mo. Best for: Teams whose only job is measuring presence across many assistants, with budget at the $399 tier.
Where it fails: Tells you that you are absent and not why. If the cause is an indexation defect, nothing here finds it.
- Semrush AI Toolkit · 19/30
Classic suite + AI add-on. $99/mo add-on. Best for: Teams already living in Semrush who want AI tracking beside the rest.
Where it fails: You operate it. The per-domain add-on gets expensive across a portfolio.
- Surfer · 19/30
On-page optimisation + AI tracking. $49/mo. Best for: Someone who enjoys the work and wants a sharper instrument for it.
Where it fails: Page-level. It will not tell you which page should exist next.
- SearchHandled (ours) · 18/30
Audit, content, and publishing. $79/site/mo. Best for: An owner who wants the underlying site defect found and the page shipped, and who is not buying a measurement dashboard.
Where it fails: Zero engine coverage and the shortest track record here. If what you need is a citation number across nine assistants, buy Profound.
- Ahrefs Brand Radar · 18/30
Classic suite + AI add-on. $199/platform/mo. Best for: SEO-mature teams already paying for Ahrefs who want brand tracking layered on.
Where it fails: The most expensive way in this table to arrive at a number you still have to act on.
- Writesonic · 16/30
Content production + AI tracking. ~$79/mo (GEO). Best for: Volume production paired with tracking in one subscription.
Where it fails: Volume-first output still needs an editor, and the tracking has no stated method.
- Clearscope · 15/30
On-page optimisation + AI tracking. $129/mo. Best for: Editorial teams with real writers who want a rigorous brief.
Where it fails: Premium price for a narrow job, and the narrowest engine coverage of the trackers here.
- AthenaHQ · 14/30
AI-visibility measurement. Free tier, then $295/mo. Best for: Broadest engine coverage per dollar, and a free tier to test the idea before paying.
Where it fails: Tells you where you stand and leaves the work with you.
- Google Search Console · 14/25
Free baseline. Free. Best for: Everyone, before buying anything. It is the floor, not the solution.
Where it fails: Tells you nothing about assistants, and does no work for you.
- Enrich Labs (Sam) · 12/25
Autonomous content agent. $39/mo. Best for: A team that has decided volume is the strategy and wants the most published articles per dollar.
Where it fails: 360 articles a month at the top tier is roughly twelve a day. Nothing published states what verifies them before they ship.
- Peec AI · 3/15
AI-visibility measurement. Not verified. Best for: Lean teams wanting a cheap entry point into GEO monitoring.
Where it fails: We could establish least about this tool of anything in the table. Its low total is a coverage artefact, not a verdict: read the 3/6 and discount accordingly.
Three Things the Scorecard Made Obvious
Nothing scored above 22 of 30. No tool in this category both measures AI answers credibly and fixes the site underneath, so every buyer here is choosing which half of the problem to solve first.
Nobody discloses their instrument. Method disclosure was the lowest-scoring column in the table. Vendors publish prompt counts and refresh cadences, which are commercial units, and almost none publish runs per prompt, model version, or reasoning mode, which are the things that decide whether a number means anything. Repeating one prompt has been observed to leave only a fraction of citations intact, so a visibility score with no run count behind it is not a measurement. We score three rather than five on this row for the honest reason that our method is published and our sampler is not built: publishing a rule you do not yet execute is worth something, but it is not worth five.
Two widely-repeated "No" cells are wrong. Competing roundups still list Surfer and Clearscope as having no AI-visibility tracking. On 2026-08-04, Surfer's pricing page documents an AI tracker across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, AI Overviews, and Gemini with per-tier prompt caps, and Clearscope's documents prompt tracking across ChatGPT and Gemini on every tier. This is what unfalsifiable tables cost a reader: the category moved and the comparison did not.
Scale is a real criterion, and it is bought. Profound scores five on track record because it has raised $58.5M in total, most recently a $35M Series B led by Sequoia in August 2025, and has spent it on the two things that row measures: years of accumulated citation data and customers willing to be named. Capital is not a product quality and we are not scoring it as one. But a buyer comparing a funded incumbent to a newer product should see the difference priced in rather than argued away, which is why the row exists and why we take a one on it.
The cheapest headline is rarely the cheapest tool. Ahrefs Brand Radar and the Semrush AI Toolkit are add-ons that assume a core plan beneath them, so the cheapest useful configuration is a multiple of the advertised number. Conversely, the clearest price-to-output mapping in the whole table belongs to a competitor, not to us: Enrich Labs publishes an article count against every tier.
How to Choose, Given All That
Decide which half of the problem you have. If you do not know whether assistants cite you, buy measurement. If you already know you are absent, buy diagnosis and execution, because a second dashboard will not change the answer.
You want the widest, most credible measurement: Profound, and budget for the $399 tier, because the $99 tier is ChatGPT only and reading it as "AI visibility" overstates what you bought. If nine engines matter more than depth, AthenaHQ publishes the broadest engine list here and has a free tier to test the idea first.
You already pay for a classic suite: add the Semrush AI Toolkit or Ahrefs Brand Radar rather than a standalone tracker. The audit underneath them is the strongest diagnosis in the measurement half of this table, and switching costs are real.
You have writers and want the pages sharper: Surfer at $49–$99, or Clearscope at $129 if a rigorous brief matters more than breadth.
Volume is your deliberate strategy: Enrich Labs publishes the most articles per dollar in this table. Read the next section before you buy it.
You want the defect found and the page shipped: that is what we built, at $79 per site with 12 verified assets a month, and it is why we score five on diagnosis and zero on engines. Buy it if the bottleneck is that nothing gets fixed. Do not buy it as a measurement tool; it is not one yet, and the pricing page says the same thing.
What Would Change These Scores
A scorecard that cannot be moved by evidence is a marketing asset, not a comparison. Four specific things would change ours.
Any vendor publishing runs per prompt, engine, model version, and reasoning mode moves up the method column immediately: that row is winnable by anyone who simply documents it. Peec AI moves off its three-of-six coverage the moment we can read its prices.
Our own zero on engine coverage is the one worth watching, because it is the one we are most tempted to move. A sampler covering OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity and Gemini landed in the product on 2026-08-04: licensed provider APIs only, a five-run floor the configuration refuses to go below, per-engine reporting rather than a blended score, and failed runs shrinking the denominator instead of counting as absence. It scored us nothing. It is off by default, and it has never been run against a live provider API, only against recorded response shapes in tests. A capability that has not run is not coverage, so the row stays at zero until there are live runs to show. If a future version of this page raises it without publishing run counts alongside, hold us to this paragraph.
The table also has a shelf life: it was captured on 2026-08-04, three of the eleven prices are third-party rather than vendor-read, and this category re-prices faster than roundups get updated, which is how Surfer and Clearscope ended up mislabelled everywhere else.
Questions People Ask About AI SEO and GEO Tools
- What is the best AI tool for SEO and GEO in 2026?
Profound scored highest on our published rubric at 22 of 30, on the strength of engine coverage and track record. Semrush AI Toolkit and Surfer tied at 19, SearchHandled scored 18, and Ahrefs Brand Radar 18. No tool scored above 22, because none of them both measures AI answers credibly and fixes the site underneath. The full per-criterion scorecard and its sources are published in this article.
- Why does SearchHandled rank itself fourth?
Because that is where the rubric put us. SearchHandled scores 18 of 30: five for diagnosing the cause, five for price transparency, four for shipping the fix, three for method disclosure, one for track record, and zero for engine coverage. The zero stands even though a citation sampler shipped on 4 August 2026, because it is off by default and has never run against a live provider API. Publishing a rubric and then discovering you win it is the tell that the rubric was built backwards.
- Does a different weighting change which tool wins?
Yes, and this article publishes three. Under equal weight Profound leads at 73% and SearchHandled is fourth at 60%. Weighted toward measurement, SearchHandled falls to sixth at 48% because it samples nothing by default. Weighted toward outcomes, which is the weighting that favours SearchHandled, it reaches 67.5% and ties Profound exactly. No weighting on the page puts SearchHandled first outright.
- Do I need a separate tool for GEO and SEO?
Usually not, and the tools that sell them separately are selling the same underlying work twice. Google's own guidance is that standard SEO fundamentals govern its AI features, and most AI citations come from pages that already rank. Buy a measurement tool only if you have already fixed indexation, structure, and entity consistency, because those are what a GEO audit almost always finds.
- How much does AI visibility tracking cost in 2026?
Verified entry prices on 4 August 2026: Google Search Console is free, AthenaHQ offers a free tier and then $295 a month, Profound starts at $99 a month for ChatGPT only and $399 for three engines, Surfer starts at $49, and Clearscope at $129. Semrush and Ahrefs sell AI tracking as add-ons on top of a core plan, so their real cost depends on the stack beneath.
- Did you actually test these tools?
No, and that distinction matters. This scores documented capability read from vendor pages on 4 August 2026, not output quality from paid accounts. Anything visible only from inside a subscription is marked unscored rather than estimated, which is why Peec AI carries a three-of-six coverage share. Every roundup in this category presents desk research as testing; this one says which it is.
