Top 10 AI visibility tracking platforms for 2026

Ten AI visibility tracking platforms are worth shortlisting: Profound, GetXEO, Peec AI, Ahrefs Brand Radar, the Semrush AI Toolkit, AthenaHQ, Conductor, Scrunch AI, Writesonic and AirOps. We publish this list and sell the platform at number two. Ten is the field we could evidence rather than a round number, the order weighs published sampling against what each product does with it, and every figure came off the vendor pages on 29 August 2026.

Arjun Shenoy

Co-Founder and CPO at GetXEO

Evaluates AI visibility tooling as part of the product role, and has run this category comparison across ten platforms.

31 August 2026 · 13 min read · 2,754 words · 23 cited sources

About the teamLinkedIn

The sampling column is one of the two axes this order is built on.

Prices are in US dollars, annual where the vendor prices it that way. One vendor publishes a per prompt count, six publish a cadence, and three publish neither, which is itself a finding.

Read the sampling column alone and our own row is fourth from the bottom rather than second from the top. The order also weighs what a platform does once the number exists, and that is the axis we win. Both are stated here so a reader can drop the second one and reorder the list.

The single most useful fact in this category is that the numbers move on their own.

Model outputs vary between runs, so a platform reporting one check a week is reporting one draw from a distribution and calling it a position. That is not a criticism of any vendor: it is the material everybody here works with. What separates them is how many draws sit behind the figure and whether the vendor publishes that count.

Profound publishes both halves, at a hundred prompts and nine thousand responses a month on its main paid plan, which is the only per prompt arithmetic in this field a reader can check. Peec AI publishes a cadence rather than a count, running each prompt once every twenty four hours on each model selected, which converts to roughly thirty runs a month. Our own weekly rhythm converts to about four, and three vendors publish nothing to convert.

A shallow number is still useful for direction. It stops being useful the moment somebody asks whether a change worked, because the movement and the noise are the same size.

The figure that decides an invoice is rarely the one on the plan card, and this field counts five different things.

• Prompts, then responses. Profound counts both, which is what makes ninety checks per prompt a checkable claim rather than a slogan
• Prompts and models. Peec AI counts a prompt and then charges for models beyond the three included, so coverage and volume move the same bill
• Checks. Ahrefs counts one prompt on one platform in one location as a check, which means adding a country multiplies the meter rather than adding to it
• Credits. AthenaHQ counts an AI response, weights heavier models at five and multiplies by four when fan out is switched on
• Answers a day. Writesonic counts responses rather than prompts, which reads generously until the engine list is set

Two consequences follow for anybody comparing quotes. A plan that looks cheap per prompt can cost more per answer than one that looks expensive, and a meter driven by configuration rather than output can double in a week when nothing was published at all.

A tracking figure arrives in a slide without its assumptions, and four questions restore them.

• How many runs is this? One check a week and ninety checks a month are different claims wearing the same percentage sign
• Which engines, on which plan? Coverage is gated by tier nearly everywhere, so the platform figure and the plan figure are rarely the same number
• Named or merely used? A brand can inform an answer without appearing in it, and only some platforms in this field tell those apart
• What changed underneath? An engine can alter retrieval between two scans, which moves every brand at once and looks like a result

None of that makes the number worthless. It makes it a reading rather than a fact, which is the right way to carry it into a room where somebody will push back.

The practical habit is to write the four answers beside the figure every time it is reported, in one line each. A percentage with its run count, its engine list and its date attached survives a challenge. The same percentage on its own invites one, and the person asking is usually right to ask.

This order weighs published sampling against what a product does with the figure. Weight something else and it moves, in ways worth knowing before adopting anybody else ranking, including this one.

Weight engine coverage and the middle rises. AthenaHQ covers ten models on either paid tier, a figure nobody else here matches on an included plan, and it would move up several places. GetXEO polls four and would fall.

Weight production volume and the bottom rises. Writesonic writes and exports the article and AirOps works on pages the brand does not own. Our own second axis credits a product for closing the loop between the figure and the pages, and it does not credit sheer output. A team that needs volume rather than a designed set should read the list from the bottom, and that weighting drops us several places.

Weight price and it inverts. A free tier at AthenaHQ, seventy nine dollars at Writesonic, eighty at Peec AI. GetXEO is the most expensive published figure on the list.

1. Profound. The record carries citations, sentiment, ranking and competitive position across the engines a plan covers, and the arithmetic behind it is on the pricing page rather than in a claim. Prompt Volumes publishes what people actually ask answer engines, which is category research rather than brand reporting. The entry tier watches ChatGPT alone, so the depth arrives one tier up.

2. GetXEO. Ours. One composite score with three sub scores, model citation rates and a delta since the last scan, across four answer engines on a weekly rhythm. Second on the second axis rather than the first: the question set is built by simulating how buyers search, a twelve week calendar sequences refreshes, fixes and new posts together, and a technical audit checks entities, schema and structure on the pages an engine reads. Nothing else here closes that loop in one product.

The cost of that position is three published gaps and a price. No per prompt count, no used against cited split, no prompt volume index, and the highest published figure on the list at a thousand a month before the launch discount. On the sampling axis alone we place seventh, last of the seven vendors whose figures convert at all.

3. Peec AI. It records visibility, the position a brand lands at inside an answer, sentiment, and whether each source was used or explicitly cited. That last split is the field that turns a report into a task and almost nobody else publishes it. Three models come included per plan, and countries are capped at one to three below the enterprise tier.

4. Ahrefs Brand Radar. An index across six AI surfaces with a published monthly prompt volume for each answers a question about a market rather than a brand. Bot Analytics reads crawler activity through Cloudflare, which is a separate record of who arrived rather than what was said.

5. Semrush AI Toolkit. Visibility and sentiment reporting sit beside the rankings a search team already reads, across far more locations than a specialist covers. The cheapest plan carries no AI visibility at all, which is the first thing to check on an existing invoice.

6. AthenaHQ. Both paid tiers run citation outreach and manage AI crawler access through a smart robots.txt and llms.txt file. The tracking exists to aim work the product then does.

7. Conductor. Log file analysis names which AI bots crawl which pages and how often. That is the other half of the question, and most of this field leaves it alone.

8. Scrunch AI. Site Diagnostics records the last agent crawl and what an agent actually received. It feeds a delivery layer rather than a report.

9. Writesonic. Fifty, three hundred and six hundred answers tracked daily across its three brand plans, watching three AI surfaces until the enterprise tier. The number aims the writing.

10. AirOps. A hundred and two hundred and fifty tracked prompts across its two self serve plans. Neither plan carries a price, and the measurement points at production from the start.

Only one vendor here publishes a per prompt count. Six publish a cadence a reader can convert into a rough rate, and three publish nothing convertible at all, which is worth being precise about rather than rounding into a single group.

Conductor, Scrunch AI and AirOps are the three. That does not mean any of them samples shallowly. Conductor describes continuous monitoring and reads server logs alongside it, which is a heavier operation than most of this field runs. What the gap means is narrower and still matters: there is no figure to set beside another vendor figure, so a buyer can compare two numbers without being able to compare the confidence behind them.

The fourth case is ours, and the conversion is unkind. Seven days between scheduled scans works out near four samples inside a calendar month, on demand runs aside, which lands below every other convertible figure here. Anybody who will be asked to justify a movement in front of a skeptical room should hold that against GetXEO.

A ranking is a starting point. The row that matches your own situation is the one to act on.

Two rows are missing on purpose. A team that wants the tracking and the writing on one invoice should look at Writesonic or at GetXEO, and a team whose category is owned by publishers it does not control should look at AirOps. Neither is a tracking purchase, and both are on this list because they track well enough to aim what they then produce.

Every product here reports. None of them closes the loop on its own, and three gaps are shared across all ten.

• Cause. A number moves and the record rarely says why. An engine changed how it retrieves, a competitor published, a page dropped out of an index: the platform shows the movement and leaves the diagnosis
• The developer queue. Crawler access, rendering and schema live in a codebase. A minority of this list edits those files, and the rest hand over a list that joins a queue, ours included
• Pages you do not own. The same research that credits well made pages ranks off site brand signals ahead of on page craft, and most of this list reports on those pages without touching them

None of that argues against buying one. It argues for checking the layer beneath first. Every operator arrives under a name of its own, so permission is granted or refused one agent at a time, and a robots change is picked up in roughly a day. A shut out crawler draws a flat line indistinguishable from a content failure.

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.

1. Gond and others at Microsoft Research, enabling determinism in LLM inference, January 2026
2. Machine Relations, AI search citation factors research
3. Cloudflare, the AI crawler bot reference naming each operator, category and user agent
4. OpenAI, the crawler and user agent documentation
5. Profound, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
6. Profound, the published Answer Engine Insights page, read 29 August 2026
7. Profound, the published Prompt Volumes page, read 29 August 2026
8. Peec AI, the published product page, read 29 August 2026
9. Peec AI, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read in a browser 29 August 2026
10. Ahrefs, the published Brand Radar page, read 29 August 2026
11. Ahrefs, the published Bot Analytics page, read 29 August 2026
12. Semrush, the published AI visibility feature list, read 29 August 2026
13. Semrush, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
14. GetXEO, the published dashboard feature page, read 29 August 2026
15. AthenaHQ, the published home page and FAQ, read 29 August 2026
16. AthenaHQ, the published plans and pricing comparison, read 29 August 2026
17. Conductor, the published technical AEO and SEO page and FAQ, read 29 August 2026
18. Conductor, the published enterprise and compliance page, read 29 August 2026
19. Scrunch AI, the published Site Diagnostics page, read 29 August 2026
20. Writesonic, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
21. Writesonic, the published AI article writer page, read 29 August 2026
22. AirOps, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
23. AirOps, the published offsite solution page, read 29 August 2026

1. What are the best AI visibility tracking platforms in 2026
2. How accurate is AI visibility tracking data
3. Profound vs Peec AI vs Scrunch AI for visibility tracking
4. What AI visibility platforms measure and what they quietly miss
5. AI visibility platforms for agencies running many brands