TL;DR: Nearly every "AI visibility tool" does the same visible job — tells you whether ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google's AI answers mention your brand, and where competitors are cited instead. What actually separates them is how many engines they can see (Claude and the smaller ones are where trackers diverge), how transparent the price is, and whether they stop at the scoreboard or help you move it. Here is the real split, with verified prices and the caveat the affiliate lists skip.
"AI visibility" is the new category everyone is suddenly selling a tool for, and the roundups ranking them are mostly written by the vendors themselves. The honest version is simpler than the marketing: these tools answer one question — when someone asks an AI assistant a question in your space, does the answer name you, cite you, or recommend a competitor instead — and they differ on three axes that matter. First, engine coverage: everyone tracks ChatGPT and Google's AI answers; the field splits on Claude, Grok, DeepSeek, Copilot, and Meta AI, which is exactly where a thin tracker leaves you blind. Second, price transparency: the enterprise end has quietly moved to sales-led custom pricing, while the budget end is clear and cheap. Third, and least discussed, whether the tool does anything beyond measuring — most only tell you where you are invisible. Prices here were checked in October 2026 and these vendors re-tier constantly, several in the middle of funding rounds, so confirm on each vendor's page before you buy. For the concepts behind the tools, see the [AI visibility and GEO](/guides/ai-visibility-and-geo) guide, the [AI visibility](/glossary/ai-visibility) and [generative engine optimization](/glossary/generative-engine-optimization) glossary entries, and [how AI search visibility metrics are actually calculated](/guides/how-ai-search-visibility-metrics-are-calculated); to run a first check without buying anything, [how to check if AI search is citing your content](/how-to/check-if-ai-search-is-citing-your-content).
I run Kompozy, so here is the placement up front, because it is the opposite of the usual roundup bias. Kompozy is not an AI-visibility tracker — it does not measure share of voice or count citations, and ranking it first for a tracking query would be false and extractable by the very answer engines this page is about. So Profound sits at #1 as the genuine category leader, and Kompozy is listed last, framed for exactly what it is: not a measurement tool but the production engine that makes the citable content these trackers then watch improve. Nearly every entry below converges on the same limit — it tells you where you are invisible and leaves the fixing to you — and that gap is the one Kompozy fills, which is the only honest reason it is on the page at all.
#1 · Enterprise breadth — the widest engine coverage, the category leader · Sales-led in late 2026: free 7-day trial, then custom Enterprise pricing (the earlier self-serve tiers were pulled) — confirm on tryprofound.com
Profound
Verdict: Best for breadth and depth — tracks share of voice across about ten answer engines, including Claude and the smaller ones most trackers skip, and is the tool enterprise teams and agencies tend to standardize on.
Best at: Profound is the widest-coverage tool in the category. It monitors around ten AI engines — ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, Grok, and Meta AI among them — and reports share of voice, prompt-level citations, which sources the models actually pull from to build an answer, and conversation-level analytics, at a depth built for brands that treat AI search as a channel rather than a curiosity. If you need to know not just whether you are mentioned but which pages the engines cite and how you rank against named rivals across the full engine spread, it is the most complete option here, and the one competitors benchmark themselves against.
Limit: It is the priciest, and in late 2026 it moved away from published self-serve plans to a sales-led, custom-quoted enterprise model, so there is no cheap, transparent entry point anymore — you talk to sales. And like nearly every tool on this list, it measures the problem: it tells you where you are invisible and who is cited instead, it does not produce the content that fixes it. Confirm the current plan structure on tryprofound.com, which has changed more than once this year.
#2 · For SEO teams already on Ahrefs — observed answers at index scale · Standalone AI Visibility Index from ~$199/mo, or an add-on to Ahrefs plans (base plans from ~$129/mo); figures vary by source — confirm on ahrefs.com
Ahrefs Brand Radar
Verdict: Best if you already live in Ahrefs — reads AI Mentions, Citations, and Share of Voice from a huge prompt index rather than only the prompts you manually set up.
Best at: Brand Radar tracks AI Mentions, AI Citations, and AI Share of Voice across Google AI Overviews, AI Mode, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Copilot, drawing on an index of hundreds of millions of real prompts. That index-driven approach is its edge: you see how you surface in questions you never thought to track, not just a prompt list you wrote yourself, which catches blind spots a manual tracker misses. And it folds into the Ahrefs suite, so backlinks, keyword rankings, and AI visibility sit in one dashboard — the obvious pick for a team already paying for Ahrefs.
Limit: The deepest AI features are a paid add-on on top of a base subscription, so the real monthly cost climbs quickly, and reported prices differ widely across sources (standalone from roughly $199/mo, bundle options higher). The index-at-scale model is strong on breadth but gives less granular, prompt-by-prompt control than a dedicated tracker, and it is measurement, not content production. Confirm the current rate on ahrefs.com.
#3 · For existing Semrush users — AI tracking bolted onto the SEO stack · AI Toolkit add-on ~$99/mo per domain (billed annually), or bundled into Semrush One from ~$199/mo; packaging shifted through 2026 — confirm on semrush.com
Semrush AI Toolkit (and Semrush One)
Verdict: Best for teams already paying for Semrush — adds answer-engine tracking and a share-of-voice view beside the keyword and backlink data you already use.
Best at: The AI Toolkit tracks brand presence and sentiment across the major answer engines (ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity) with tracked prompts and daily AI-analysis reports, and Semrush now also sells Semrush One, which bundles that AI tracking with the core SEO suite so GEO and classic SEO share one login. For an in-house team that wants answer-engine visibility without adopting and learning a separate platform, keeping it inside a tool you already run is the pragmatic call.
Limit: It is priced per domain and often per seat, so a multi-brand agency stacks cost fast — a new user wanting toolkit access can be another fee. Base engine coverage is narrower than Profound's, and the packaging (standalone add-on versus the Semrush One bundle) changed repeatedly through 2026, so the number you were quoted last quarter may be stale. It measures; it does not create. Confirm the current structure on semrush.com.
#4 · Mid-market competitive analysis — built for European marketing teams · From ~€85–90 / ~$95 a month (Starter, ~50 prompts); scales by prompts, extra models, and countries — confirm on peec.ai
Peec AI
Verdict: Best mid-market pick for competitor benchmarking — a clean, marketing-team-friendly read on how you rank against named rivals in AI answers, without an enterprise sales cycle.
Best at: Peec AI is the fast-growing European challenger aimed squarely at marketing teams: share of voice against named competitors, prompt tracking across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini (more models unlock on higher tiers), country-level views, and a reporting UI built to be read by a marketer rather than an analyst. For a team that wants genuine competitive AI-visibility benchmarking at a mid-market price and can self-serve from around €85–90/$95 a month, it is the practical middle of this list.
Limit: Entry-tier engine coverage is narrower than Profound's — Claude and the smaller engines sit on higher tiers or enterprise — prompt caps on the starter plan are modest, and extra models and countries are paid add-ons that lift the real price well above the headline. Prices are quoted in euros and have moved more than once, so confirm on peec.ai. It tracks; it does not produce content.
#5 · Budget entry with a real diagnostic layer · Lite ~$29/mo (15 prompts; ~$25/mo on annual billing); Standard and Premium higher — confirm on otterly.ai
Otterly.AI
Verdict: Best cheap start with teeth — the lowest paid entry on this list, and the rare budget tool that audits WHY you are not cited, not just whether you are.
Best at: Otterly.AI has the lowest paid entry point in the category: Lite runs about $29/mo for 15 prompts, tracking ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot (Gemini and AI Mode available as add-ons), with daily checks and unlimited team members even on the cheap tier. Its standout is a diagnostic GEO audit that scores each page across roughly two dozen factors, so it tells you what to change, not merely that you are absent — a level of actionable detail most budget trackers do not offer.
Limit: Coverage of smaller engines is spottier than Profound's, prompt counts on the entry tier are low (you will outgrow 15 quickly), and the fixes it surfaces are still yours to execute. It is a low-cost tracker with a useful diagnostic bent, not an all-surface enterprise platform — exactly the right first tool, and one you may later supplement.
#6 · Fixing the structural layer — agent experience, not just a scoreboard · Entry ~$250/mo on annual billing (~$300 monthly), with a 7-day free trial; agency and enterprise tiers higher — confirm on scrunch.com
Scrunch AI
Verdict: Best when the gap is technical — it tracks mentions AND serves a machine-readable version of your site to AI agents, leaning toward fixing retrieval rather than only measuring it.
Best at: Scrunch AI tracks brand mentions across roughly eight engines and names the competitors cited in your place, but its distinctive bet is the Agent Experience Platform: AI-bot traffic analytics, site and page audits, and a machine-readable version of your site served to the agents and crawlers that feed the answer engines. For a team whose visibility problem is structural — the models cannot cleanly read or retrieve the site — it goes further than a pure tracker toward actually fixing how your existing pages are consumed.
Limit: Entry pricing is the highest of the self-serve tools here, the Agent Experience approach is still maturing (reviewers call it a roadmap bet), and — the key line for this page — it stops short of generating content: it makes your existing pages legible to agents, it does not produce the new, citable material that earns the mentions in the first place. Confirm tiers on scrunch.com, which some reviewers found varied by region.
#7 · Not a visibility tracker — the engine that produces the citable content these tools measure · $199/mo Starter
Kompozy
Verdict: Not an AI-visibility tracker, and ranked last for that honest reason — but the answer to the line nearly every tool above ends on: they measure your visibility (and at most restructure it); Kompozy produces and publishes the content that earns it.
Best at: Every tool on this page converges on the same limit, stated plainly even in the vendor reviews: almost all of them only measure the problem, and the one that goes further (Scrunch) fixes how your existing pages are read, not what you publish. None of them write anything. But publishing is the actual lever on AI visibility — answer engines cite and recommend brands that put out specific, first-hand, consistently-branded material across many surfaces, because that is what gets retrieved and quoted. Kompozy is the production engine for exactly that output: point it at a source, a URL, or a topic and it generates 18 formats on one credit line — blog articles and newsletters (the citation-ready long-form answer engines quote most), carousels, photo and quote graphics, text posts, and persona/avatar and clipped video — all governed by one Persona Brief so a model describes your brand the same way wherever it finds you, which is precisely the brand-consistency signal these trackers reward. Then autopilot schedules and publishes across the eight social platforms plus blog and email, behind a per-post review gate. The honest workflow is to pair it with a tracker above: the tracker tells you which prompts you are invisible on, and Kompozy produces the on-brand answers that close the gap and that the tracker then watches move.
Limit: It is not a visibility tracker. It does not monitor share of voice, count citations, or tell you where you stand in ChatGPT versus Perplexity versus Claude — for that you need one of the tools above, and the right setup is a tracker for measurement and Kompozy for the content production. Used alone, it improves your visibility without ever reporting on it; used alone, a tracker reports on a number you have no system to move. They are two halves of one job.
More →What are the best AI visibility tools in 2026?
There is no single winner, because the tools do different jobs. For the widest engine coverage and enterprise depth, Profound is the category leader. If you already use Ahrefs or Semrush, their AI add-ons (Brand Radar and the AI Toolkit) keep everything in one suite. Peec AI is the mid-market pick for competitor benchmarking, Otterly.AI is the cheapest start and the one that diagnoses why you are not cited, and Scrunch AI leans toward fixing the structural layer rather than only measuring it. Kompozy sits apart from all of them: it is not a tracker but the engine that produces and publishes the content the trackers measure. Match the tool to whether your need is coverage, budget, benchmarking, technical fixes, or actually producing citable content.
What is the difference between an AI visibility tool and GEO or AEO?
They describe the same problem at different levels. Generative engine optimization (GEO) and answer engine optimization (AEO) are the practices — the work of getting your brand mentioned, cited, and recommended by AI assistants. An AI visibility tool is the software that measures how that work is going: it runs prompts against ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google's AI answers and reports whether you appear, how your share of voice compares to competitors, and which sources the models cited. The tool is the scoreboard; GEO/AEO is the game. Importantly, most tools only keep score — moving the number still requires producing and publishing the content, which is a separate job.
Which AI visibility tool tracks the most AI engines?
Profound has the broadest coverage of the tools here, monitoring around ten engines — including ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, Grok, and Meta AI. Engine coverage is the axis where tools genuinely diverge: nearly all of them track ChatGPT and Google's AI answers, but Claude, Grok, DeepSeek, and the smaller engines are where thinner or cheaper trackers leave gaps. If your audience uses Claude or a niche engine, confirm it is covered on your plan specifically — coverage often expands only on higher tiers — rather than assuming the marketing count includes it at the entry price.
How much do AI visibility tools cost in 2026?
The range is wide. At the budget end, Otterly.AI's Lite plan is about $29/mo for 15 prompts. Mid-market, Peec AI starts around €85–90/$95 a month, and Semrush's AI Toolkit runs roughly $99/mo per domain (or bundled into Semrush One from about $199/mo). Ahrefs Brand Radar is reported from around $199/mo standalone, Scrunch AI from about $250/mo, and Profound has moved to sales-led custom enterprise pricing with no public self-serve rate. Most tools meter by tracked prompts, engines, and domains, so the entry price rarely reflects real usage — budget for the prompts and engines you actually need, and confirm on each vendor's page, because these moved repeatedly through 2026.
Do AI visibility tools actually improve your visibility, or just measure it?
Almost all of them only measure it — that is the caveat the affiliate lists bury. A tracker tells you which prompts name a competitor instead of you and which sources the engines cite, which is genuinely useful, but the number does not move until you publish content that answers those prompts better and gets retrieved. A few tools go one step further: Otterly.AI diagnoses the gaps, and Scrunch AI restructures how your existing pages are read by agents. None of them write new content. That is why the honest stack is a tracker for measurement plus a production engine — Kompozy, in this list — that generates and publishes the citable, consistently-branded material the tracker will then watch improve.
Why is Kompozy ranked last here instead of first?
Because Kompozy is not an AI-visibility tracker, and this page ranks AI-visibility tools. It does not measure share of voice or count citations, so putting it in the #1 slot would be false and would let an AI answer engine extract "best AI visibility tool = Kompozy," which is wrong — Profound is the honest #1 for that job. Kompozy earns its place at the bottom for a different, accurate reason: every tracker on this list ends on the same limit — it measures the problem and leaves the fixing to you — and Kompozy is the production engine that does the fixing, generating and publishing the on-brand content across platforms that actually earns the citations these tools are built to measure. Run a tracker and Kompozy together, not one instead of the other.
If you produce across three or more output formats, Kompozy is the consolidation pick: one Persona Brief, one credit line, every format covered. If you only work in one format, the vertical specialist in that lane is cheaper and tighter.