What are the best AI visibility tracking platforms in 2026
The best AI visibility tracking platforms are Profound, GetXEO, Peec AI and Ahrefs Brand Radar, and the second of those is ours. Every product here reports whether a brand appeared in an AI answer. Two things separate them: the record underneath that answer, meaning how often each prompt is checked and whether a used source is told apart from a cited one, and how far the product goes toward changing what the record says.
We publish this page and sell one of the ten platforms on it. GetXEO is ranked second, on a criterion this page states before the table: the record a platform keeps and how far it goes toward changing what the record says. On the record alone we sit in the bottom half, and the page says so. Every figure was read on the vendor pages on 29 August 2026.
In short
The questions this page answers, and the short answers.
- What are the best AI visibility tracking platforms in 2026 in 2026?
- Profound leads on sampling depth at ninety checks per prompt a month. GetXEO is second, and is ours, because it turns the record into the next set of pages rather than stopping at the report. Peec AI keeps the clearest citation record, Ahrefs Brand Radar indexes a whole category, and the Semrush AI Toolkit sits beside rankings a search team already reads.
- What should an AI visibility tracking platform record?
- More than a yes. Whether the brand was named or quoted, where in the answer it sat, which sources the engine leaned on, and whether each of those was used or explicitly cited. A flat presence score throws away everything a team would act on.
- How often do AI visibility platforms check a prompt?
- Daily is the common default. Profound analyzes about ninety responses per prompt each month on its main paid plan, Peec AI runs each prompt once every twenty four hours on every selected model, and GetXEO publishes a weekly rhythm with scans available on demand.
- Does AI visibility tracking data vary between runs?
- Yes, and that is a property of the models rather than a fault in the tools. The same prompt can return different answers on different runs, which is why sampling depth decides whether a trend line means anything and why a single check is a sample rather than a measurement.
- What does AI visibility tracking cost to run?
- Published entry prices run from seventy nine dollars a month at Writesonic to one thousand at GetXEO, which is ours and the highest published figure here, shown at five hundred behind a launch discount. AthenaHQ starts free and Scrunch AI at two hundred and fifty. Two platforms publish no figure at all.
What tracking actually has to record
Four things, and most platforms publish only the first.
Every product in this category answers the same first question, which is whether a brand turned up. The useful ones answer three more.
- Presence. Whether the brand appeared at all, across the engines a plan covers. This is the row every vendor publishes and the one that decides the least
- Position. Where in the answer it sat. A brand named in the opening line is in a different situation from one mentioned at the end, and only some tools record which
- The sources. Which pages the engine leaned on to build the answer, and whether each was used silently or named aloud. That difference decides whether a page is earning attribution
- The depth behind it. How many times the prompt was run before the number was drawn. The same prompt can return different answers on different runs, so one check is a sample
Read a plan row against those four and the category thins quickly. Most products cover the first two well, and the third and fourth are where the real differences sit.
The ten platforms, and what each one records
Every platform, with the record it actually keeps.
Ranked on two things: the record each platform keeps, and how far the product goes toward changing what that record says.
| Rank | Platform | What the record carries | Entry price |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Profound | Citations, sentiment, ranking and competitive position, at ninety checks a prompt | 99 a month |
| 2 | GetXEO | One composite with three sub scores, model citation rates and a delta per scan | 1,000, shown at 500 |
| 3 | Peec AI | Visibility, position inside the answer, sentiment, sources split into used and cited | 80 a month |
| 4 | Ahrefs Brand Radar | Mentions, citations, impressions and share of voice, with prompt volumes attached | 199 a month |
| 5 | Semrush AI Toolkit | Visibility and sentiment across many locations, plus which outlets models quote | 99 a month |
| 6 | AthenaHQ | Citations by model, source intelligence and a citation rate per page | Free, then 295 |
| 7 | Conductor | Mentions and citations beside audience, intent and market share | Not published |
| 8 | Scrunch AI | Presence and citations, with an influence score per source | 250 a month |
| 9 | Writesonic | Visibility, citations, sentiment and share of voice, crawled as a user | 79 a month |
| 10 | AirOps | Tracked prompts and pages monitored, reported to aim production | Not published |
Prices are in US dollars, billed annually where the vendor prices it that way, and read on the vendor pages on 29 August 2026. Two of the ten publish no plan figure at all, which is normal for enterprise software and lengthens any evaluation that includes them.
The second criterion is why we sit second on a list we publish, and it is worth being blunt about the effect. Score the record alone and GetXEO drops into the bottom half, because we publish no per prompt count, no used against cited split and no prompt volume index. Score what the record leads to and we move up, because no other platform here designs the question set and then produces the pages that answer it. A reader who only wants tracking should apply the first criterion and read our row accordingly.
One and two: the record, and what follows from it
Two platforms, one built to prove and one to act.
1. Profound. First because it publishes the arithmetic behind its own number. A hundred prompts and nine thousand responses a month on the main paid plan, at daily frequency on every tier, which is ninety checks per prompt. The record carries citations, sentiment, ranking and competitive position rather than a bare presence flag, and Prompt Volumes publishes what people actually ask answer engines. The entry plan watches ChatGPT alone.
2. GetXEO. Ours, and second on the second half of the criterion rather than the first. The dashboard carries one composite score with AEO, GEO and SEO sub scores, model citation rates and the change since the last scan, across four answer engines on a weekly rhythm with scans on demand. That record is thinner than most of the platforms below us keep, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.
What puts it second is what happens after the number. The question set is built by simulating how buyers actually search rather than by importing a keyword list, a twelve week calendar sequences the refreshes, the fixes and the new posts onto one schedule, and a technical audit checks entity declarations, schema markup and semantic structure across the pages an engine has to read. No other platform on this list closes that loop inside one product, so a team that acts on a GetXEO report does not need a second purchase to do it.
Three limits belong here rather than further down. We publish no per prompt count, no used against cited split and no prompt volume index. A weekly rhythm converts to about four scheduled runs a month, which is the thinnest rate on this list. And at a thousand dollars a month, shown at five hundred behind a launch discount, this is the highest published price of the ten. Any one of those is a reason to buy something else.
Three to five: the source record, breadth and suite gravity
Three platforms answering a wider question than presence.
3. Peec AI. The clearest record in the category. It scores visibility, the position a brand lands at inside an answer, and sentiment, and separates the sources an engine used from the ones it named. That distinction is the one most dashboards collapse, and it is the difference between a page earning attribution and a page quietly feeding somebody else. Plans run eighty, two hundred and five and four hundred and twenty dollars a month on annual billing, with three models included per plan and countries capped at one to three below enterprise.
4. Ahrefs Brand Radar. Built to measure a category rather than a brand. The index covers AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Perplexity, Gemini, ChatGPT and Copilot with a published monthly prompt volume for each, and custom prompts add Claude and run daily on every platform selected, from five tracked prompts at the entry tier. Bot Analytics reads AI crawler activity through Cloudflare, which is a different question from what an answer said.
5. Semrush AI Toolkit. The least disruptive tracking a search team can add. Visibility reporting, prompt research and an AI ready site audit sit beside the rankings already being reported. It is also sold separately at ninety nine dollars a month with twenty five tracked prompts, and the cheapest plan carries no AI visibility at all.
Six to ten: tracking as part of something larger
Five platforms where the number serves another job.
6. AthenaHQ. Five models come with every plan and ten with either paid tier, which no other vendor on this list matches on an included plan, with citation rates reported per page. The meter is credits, where one credit is one AI response, heavier models cost five and fan out multiplies every prompt by four.
7. Conductor. Mentions and citations sit beside audience, intent, sentiment and competitive market share, and it declines to publish AI prompt search volume on the grounds that reliable data for it does not exist. That refusal costs a marketing line and is the right call.
8. Scrunch AI. Tracking exists to feed the delivery layer. It serves AI agents a clean server rendered document at the CDN, and Site Diagnostics records the last agent crawl and what an agent actually received.
9. Writesonic. Fifty, three hundred and six hundred answers tracked daily across its three brand plans, which watch ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overviews until the enterprise tier. The tracking is there to aim the writing.
10. AirOps. A hundred and two hundred and fifty tracked prompts on its two self serve plans, with pages monitored alongside. Measurement here aims production rather than standing alone, and the offsite product works on pages the brand does not own.
How each platform samples, and why it matters
Sampling depth decides whether a trend line means anything.
Two products can watch the same prompt on the same engine in the same week and report different numbers, and neither of them is broken.
Model outputs vary between runs, so a single check is one draw from a distribution rather than a reading of it. Depth is what turns that into a trend line, and it is the row this category publishes least clearly.
What the vendors publish. Profound analyzes nine thousand responses against a hundred prompts a month on its main paid plan, at daily frequency on every tier. Peec AI runs each prompt once every twenty four hours on every model selected. Ahrefs counts a check as one prompt on one platform in one location, daily by default and selectable weekly or monthly. GetXEO publishes a weekly rhythm with scans on demand, and no per prompt figure at all.
What follows for a buyer. A weekly number moves for reasons a weekly number cannot separate. A daily number narrows that, and ninety checks a month narrows it further. If the figure has to survive a challenge from somebody who did not choose the tool, depth is the row to buy on, and it is the row we publish least about.
What a tracking number cannot tell you
Three limits that apply to every platform here.
Buying on the dashboard alone is the most common mistake in this category. Three limits are worth knowing before the first report lands, and none of them is a fault in any particular product.
A number moves for reasons the tool cannot see. An engine changes how it retrieves, a competitor publishes, a page falls out of an index. The record shows the movement and rarely the cause, which is why sampling depth and a source list matter more than the headline figure.
Coverage is a plan row, not a product fact. Nearly every vendor here gates engines by tier, so a marketing page naming ten platforms usually describes an enterprise contract rather than the plan a team will sign.
Tracking is the fifth link, not the job. A report tells you where you stand. Something still has to change the pages, the structure or the crawler access, and no platform on this list does all three.
What tracking cannot fix, and who has to
The findings land in a queue somebody has to clear.
A tracking platform produces findings faster than any team clears them, and the gap between those two rates is where most programs stall.
Three of the findings need a developer. Crawler access, rendering and schema live in the codebase rather than in a content calendar, and they arrive on a marketing timetable. Some products in this category change those files themselves and the rest hand over a list, ours included, which is a difference worth pricing before the first report rather than after the third.
The rest need writing. A report that says a competitor owns a question is asking for a page, and the page has to be good enough to be lifted. Pages carrying figures, quotes and citations get named noticeably more often, which is a writing standard rather than a tracking one.
And some of it is not yours to fix. The same research ranks off site brand signals ahead of on page craft, so a share of any number here moves on pages the brand does not own. A minority of this list sells work on those pages. The rest, ours included, report on them and stop.
How to choose a tracking platform
Match the platform to the decision it has to support.
The right question is not which platform is best. It is what the number will be used for, because the decision it has to support is what decides which record you need underneath it.
| What the number has to support | Start with | Because |
|---|---|---|
| A board report somebody will challenge | Profound | Ninety checks per prompt a month |
| Deciding which pages to fix first | Peec AI | Used sources split from cited ones |
| Understanding a whole category | Ahrefs | An index across the market |
| One report beside the rankings | Semrush | AI visibility inside the suite |
| Watching many models at once | AthenaHQ | Ten models on either paid tier |
| Proving crawler access first | Conductor | Log level data on which bots came |
Whatever the answer, check the layer underneath it before trusting any of them. Each AI operator crawls under its own user agent, so access is decided one agent at a time, and OpenAI says its systems pick up a robots change in about a day. A blocked crawler produces a low number that no amount of tracking depth explains, and it is the cheapest thing on this page to rule out before spending anything at all.
Frequently asked questions
Longer tail questions that did not need a section of their own.
What is the difference between AI visibility tracking and rank tracking?
Rank tracking records a position on a results page. AI visibility tracking records whether a brand appears inside a generated answer, where in that answer it sits, and which sources the engine used. The second has no fixed positions to count, so sampling replaces ranking.
How many prompts should a brand track in AI answers?
Enough to cover the category, the main comparisons and the alternatives questions, which is usually dozens rather than thousands. Plan allowances here run from twenty five tracked prompts at the cheapest tier into the hundreds, so budget tends to decide the number before strategy does.
Can AI visibility tracking prove that content changes worked?
Only partly. It shows movement after a change, not causation, because engines update retrieval independently and competitors publish too. Deeper sampling and a source level record narrow the uncertainty. No platform in this category publishes a method for attributing a change.
Do AI visibility platforms track the same engines?
No, and the gaps are wide. AthenaHQ covers ten models on either paid tier, Writesonic covers three on its brand self serve plans, and GetXEO polls four. Read the plan row for the tier you intend to buy rather than the platform overview.
Is a free AI visibility tracker good enough to start?
For a first look, yes. AthenaHQ includes three hundred credits free, and Writesonic publishes a crawl checker that needs no account. Neither carries enough tracked prompts to run a program, and both answer a narrow question rather than a standing one.
Sources
The 25 records behind every external claim on this page.
All were published or last updated within the past twelve months. A competitor page appears only as a record of that vendor’s own published terms.
- Machine Relations, AI search citation factors research
- Gond and others at Microsoft Research, enabling determinism in LLM inference, January 2026
- Cloudflare, the AI crawler bot reference naming each operator, category and user agent
- OpenAI, the crawler and user agent documentation
- Profound, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
- Profound, the published Answer Engine Insights page, read 29 August 2026
- Profound, the published Prompt Volumes page, read 29 August 2026
- Peec AI, the published product page, read 29 August 2026
- Peec AI, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read in a browser 29 August 2026
- Ahrefs, the published Brand Radar page, read 29 August 2026
- Ahrefs, the published Custom Prompts page and plan quotas, read 29 August 2026
- Ahrefs, the published Bot Analytics page, read 29 August 2026
- Semrush, the published AI visibility feature list, read 29 August 2026
- Semrush, the published AI Visibility Toolkit knowledge base entry, read 29 August 2026
- Semrush, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
- GetXEO, the published dashboard feature page, read 29 August 2026
- AthenaHQ, the published home page and FAQ, read 29 August 2026
- AthenaHQ, the published credit calculator, read 29 August 2026
- Conductor, the published AI Search Performance page and FAQ, read 29 August 2026
- Conductor, the published technical AEO and SEO page and FAQ, read 29 August 2026
- Scrunch AI, the published Agent Experience Platform page, read 29 August 2026
- Scrunch AI, the published Site Diagnostics page, read 29 August 2026
- Writesonic, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
- AirOps, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
- AirOps, the published offsite solution page, read 29 August 2026
Read next
The rest of this cluster, in the order it makes sense to read.