12 Best AEO and AI Visibility Tools for B2B Teams in 2026

AEO tools track whether AI assistants mention and cite your brand, and tell you which sources they are using instead of you. The category is roughly two years old, pricing ranges from free to enterprise, and almost every roundup you will read was assembled from vendor landing pages rather than from actually running the software.

This one is different in a specific way. We run AI visibility monitoring in production for client accounts, and the numbers in this article come from 5,550 tracked AI responses across three brands in three countries between 27 April and 26 July 2026. Where we have hands-on data, I say so. Where I am summarising a vendor’s own claims, I say that too.

That distinction is the whole point. Most of these tools sample AI answers, and sampling method changes the number you get. A tool that runs 50 prompts once a week and a tool that runs 300 prompts daily will report different “visibility scores” for the same brand on the same day, and neither is lying.

How we tested, and what we could not test

I want this up front rather than buried, because methodology is the thing every competing roundup omits.

What we ran in production

Parameter	Detail
Monitoring window	27 April to 26 July 2026 (90 days)
AI responses analysed	5,550
Brands	3 (B2B ecommerce US, roofing Italy, waterproofing Germany)
Engines covered	ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews
Prompts per brand	50 to 150, split branded and unbranded
Refresh cadence	Daily reports of 150 responses per brand
Primary platform used	Searchable
Supporting data	Ahrefs Brand Radar, DataForSEO AI Optimization API

What we did not do. We did not run all twelve tools against an identical prompt set simultaneously. That test would cost more than most agencies spend on tooling in a year, and anyone claiming they did it across a dozen platforms deserves a follow-up question about who paid for it. For the tools we have not run in production, this article reports engine coverage, pricing and positioning from public documentation, clearly labelled.

Known limitations of any AI visibility number, including ours. AI answers are non-deterministic, so the same prompt returns different text on different days. Our own daily reports on one brand swung between a 44% and a 71% mention rate inside five days. At 150 responses per report, the margin of error is real. Treat direction over three or more reports as the signal and any single day’s score as noise.

Quick comparison

Pricing changes constantly in this category. Verify before you buy.

Tool	Best for	Engines tracked	Free tier	Hands-on data
Searchable	Agencies running multiple client brands	ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews	No	Yes — 90 days, 5,550 responses
Profound	Enterprise brand monitoring at scale	10+ answer engines	No (self-serve from ~$99/mo)	No — vendor docs
Ahrefs Brand Radar	Teams already paying for Ahrefs	ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, AI Overviews	Limited checker	Used alongside
DataForSEO AI Optimization API	Devs who want raw data and no dashboard	ChatGPT plus LLM mention index	Pay per call	Used for this article
Peec AI	European teams, prompt-level detail	Multi-engine	No	Vendor docs
Otterly.AI	Small teams starting out	ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews	No (14-day trial, from $29/mo)	Vendor docs
Semrush AI Visibility	Teams consolidating on one suite	Multi-engine	Free checker	Vendor docs
SE Ranking AI Visibility Tracker	Budget-conscious agencies	Multi-engine	Trial	Vendor docs
Writesonic	Tracking plus content production	Multi-engine	Trial	Vendor docs
ZipTie	Focused citation tracking	Multi-engine	No	Vendor docs
Geoptie	Cheapest broad coverage, from $49/mo	ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini	No	Vendor docs
HubSpot AEO Grader	A free one-off sanity check	ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini	Yes, free	Vendor docs

---

1. Searchable

Best for: agencies managing several client brands who need topic-level and prompt-level breakdowns rather than a single score.

This is the platform behind every number in this article, so treat what follows as informed rather than neutral.

What made it useful for us was not the headline visibility score, which every tool has, but three specific views. Mentions and citations reported separately, which surfaced the finding that our US client was mentioned 22,885 times and cited only 4,133 times, an 18% conversion. Per-platform breakdown, which showed the same brand at 20% visibility on ChatGPT and 16.8% on Google AI Overviews. And a topic map that flagged 21 of 28 tracked topics at a 0% mention rate, which became the content roadmap.

The source report is the part I use most. It ranks every domain the models cite for your prompt set and tags each as brand, competitor, directory, forum or editorial. For the Italian client that report showed four of the top seven cited domains were local directories, which redirected the entire strategy from content production toward listing correction.

Limitations. No free tier. Coverage is ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, so if Claude or Gemini matter to your category you will want a second source — and the three surfaces attribute very differently, which we dig into in how to rank in Google AI Overviews. Daily report samples of 150 responses produce visible day-to-day swing.

2. Profound

Best for: enterprise teams that need breadth of engine coverage and can support enterprise pricing.

Profound is the most established name in the category and consistently ranks itself first in its own roundups, which tells you something about both its SEO and its self-awareness. Public documentation describes tracking millions of prompts daily across roughly ten answer engines, with sentiment analysis and competitive share of voice. It has recently added published self-serve plans starting around $99/mo alongside its custom enterprise tier, so it is no longer contact-sales-only, though the self-serve tiers cap engine and prompt coverage well below the enterprise plan.

If your category has genuine coverage across Claude, Copilot, Gemini, DeepSeek and Grok rather than just the big three, breadth is a real argument for it.

Limitations. No free tier, and full breadth of coverage still sits behind enterprise pricing that can run into the thousands per month. I have not run it, so I cannot speak to data accuracy against a known baseline.

3. Ahrefs Brand Radar

Best for: teams already inside the Ahrefs ecosystem who want AI visibility alongside backlinks and rankings.

We use Brand Radar as a cross-check rather than a primary source, and it is good at a job the pure AEO tools do less well: historical trend. It shows AI impressions and mentions over time, plus which domains get cited alongside yours and which specific pages the models favour.

The cited-pages view is the practical one. It tells you what format the models are pulling from, which is how we confirmed that ranked lists and topic guides dominate citations in our clients’ categories.

The free AI Visibility Checker is a legitimate entry point if you just want to know whether your brand shows up at all.

Limitations. It is a module inside a broader suite, so prompt-level control is more limited than in dedicated tools. Best as a second opinion, not a sole source.

4. DataForSEO AI Optimization API

Best for: developers and technical SEOs who want raw data, full control of the prompt set, and no dashboard.

Nobody in the current top 10 for “ai visibility tools” mentions the DIY route, despite “AI monitoring tools open source” sitting in the related searches. If you can write a script, this is the cheapest and most flexible option in the category.

DataForSEO exposes endpoints for LLM mention search, aggregated mention metrics, top cited domains and top cited pages for a topic, plus a live ChatGPT scraper. You pay per call rather than per seat. You define the prompt set, the cadence, the sampling size and the storage, and you own the historical data rather than renting access to it.

We used these endpoints for the keyword and SERP research behind this article, and they are the backbone of any custom AI visibility dashboard worth building.

Limitations. There is no interface. You are building the reporting layer yourself, which means engineering time. Costs scale with call volume and can exceed a seat licence if you are careless with cadence. Not appropriate if a client needs to log in and look at a chart tomorrow.

Rough build: one endpoint for mention search, one for top cited domains, a scheduler, and a database. A competent developer gets a working v1 in a few days.

5. Peec AI

Best for: European teams wanting prompt-level detail and multi-engine coverage.

Peec appears consistently in the AI Overview for tool queries, which is itself a signal that it has invested in its own AEO. Positioning centres on prompt-level visibility tracking with competitor benchmarking, aimed at in-house marketing teams rather than enterprises.

Limitations. Vendor-documentation assessment only. Verify engine coverage against your priority platforms before committing.

6. Otterly.AI

Best for: small teams and solo consultants who need a starting point rather than a platform.

Otterly covers ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews with link and mention tracking, and its entry plan is one of the cheapest paid seats in the category. For a business that wants to know whether it exists in AI answers before committing to a bigger platform, it is a reasonable first stop.

Limitations. Vendor-documentation assessment only. There is no permanent free plan, only a time-limited free trial, so budget for the paid tier before you rely on it.

7. Semrush AI Visibility

Best for: teams already consolidated on Semrush who want one login.

Semrush’s AI visibility features sit inside the wider suite and include a free brand visibility checker that ranks for its own commercial terms. If you are already paying for Semrush, using its AI module before buying a second subscription is the obvious sequence.

Limitations. Vendor-documentation assessment only. Suite modules tend to lag dedicated tools on engine coverage and prompt-level granularity.

8. SE Ranking AI Visibility Tracker

Best for: agencies watching cost across many small accounts.

SE Ranking has historically priced below Semrush and Ahrefs and has added AI visibility tracking to its suite. For agencies running dozens of small local accounts where per-client tooling cost matters more than depth, that pricing position is the argument.

Limitations. Vendor-documentation assessment only.

9. Writesonic

Best for: teams that want tracking and content production in the same tool.

Writesonic bridges visibility tracking and content generation, which is either the main attraction or the main risk depending on your view of AI-written content. It appears in Google’s AI Overview for AEO tool queries, so its own optimization works.

Limitations. Vendor-documentation assessment only. Combining measurement and generation in one vendor creates an obvious incentive problem when the tool recommends publishing more.

10. ZipTie

Best for: focused citation tracking without a broader suite.

ZipTie shows up in the AI Overview for AI visibility queries with a narrow positioning around tracking where and whether your brand is cited.

Limitations. Vendor-documentation assessment only.

11. Geoptie

Best for: the cheapest broad engine coverage, with a published entry price.

Geoptie is cited directly inside Google’s AI Overview for “aeo tools” and publishes an entry price of $49 per month covering ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Gemini. For a small business that wants four engines rather than three and a price it can see before booking a demo, that is a genuinely differentiated position in a category full of “contact sales.”

Limitations. Vendor-documentation assessment only. Low entry prices in this category typically mean low prompt allowances, so check the sampling limits.

12. HubSpot AEO Grader

Best for: a free, no-account, five-minute answer to “does AI know who we are.”

The Grader runs a one-time check across ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini and scores your brand on recognition, sentiment and presence quality. It is a diagnostic, not a monitoring tool, and it is free.

Use it to get a stakeholder’s attention. The moment a founder sees their brand absent from an AI answer about their own category, the budget conversation gets much shorter.

Limitations. One-off snapshot with no trend data, no prompt control and no competitor benchmarking. It is a hook for HubSpot’s wider platform, which is fine as long as you know that going in.

---

How to choose, in three questions

1. Do you need a dashboard, or do you need data? If a client or an executive logs in, buy a platform. If the output is an internal report you build anyway, the DataForSEO API route costs less and gives you more control.

2. Which engines actually matter in your category? In our data, ChatGPT was the highest-yield surface for every brand we tracked, mentioning them in 20% to 33% of answers against 14% to 20% for Perplexity and Google AI Overviews. If ChatGPT and Perplexity cover your buyers, paying for ten-engine coverage is spending money on precision you will not use.

3. What is the sampling method? Ask every vendor three things before buying: how many prompts per report, how often the report refreshes, and whether the score is calculated on branded prompts, unbranded prompts or both. That last one matters enormously, and it’s the same trap we cover in our LLM SEO framework for building your own prompt set. One of our clients scored a 93% mention rate on branded prompts and 0% on its highest-intent category prompts. A tool that blends those into one score will tell you everything is fine.

What none of these tools will do for you

They measure. They do not fix.

Every platform in this list will hand you a visibility score and a list of competitors. None of them will tell you that four of the seven domains being cited instead of you are directories you could claim and correct in an afternoon, which is what the source report surfaced for our Italian client and what produced a 92% lift in visibility score inside five days.

The tool is the thermometer. The work is still the work. If you want the diagnostic and the fix in one pass, that is what our answer engine optimization service is for, and you can run the free Agent Readiness Scanner first to see whether the assistants can even read your site.

Frequently asked questions

What is an AEO tool? An AEO tool monitors whether AI assistants like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Google AI Overviews mention your brand in their answers, whether they link to your site as a source, and which other domains they cite instead of you. See our full breakdown of answer engine optimization for how the underlying mechanism works.

Are there free AI visibility tools? Yes, for a one-time snapshot rather than ongoing monitoring. HubSpot’s AEO Grader runs a free one-time brand check with no account. Ahrefs and Semrush both offer free AI visibility checkers. Otterly.AI does not have a permanent free plan, only a time-limited free trial before its paid tiers start. Treat any of these as a snapshot, not a measurement.

What is a good AI visibility score? There is no universal benchmark, because every vendor calculates it differently and the number depends entirely on your prompt set. Our three tracked brands scored 10, 18 and 32 on the same platform in the same window. What matters is the direction of your own score over time on a fixed prompt set, not the absolute number against somebody else’s.

Can I track AI visibility without a paid tool? Yes, two ways. Manually, by running your prompt set through each assistant and logging the results in a spreadsheet, which is tedious but free and genuinely instructive the first time. Or programmatically, using the DataForSEO AI Optimization API to pull mention and citation data on your own schedule.

How often should I check AI visibility? Weekly at minimum, because AI answers are non-deterministic and a single reading tells you almost nothing. Our daily monitoring on one brand swung from a 44% to a 71% mention rate inside five days. You need at least three data points before a change means anything.

Do AEO tools track Claude and Gemini? Some do, some do not, and this is the most common mismatch between what a buyer assumes and what they get. Profound and Geoptie advertise the broadest coverage. Several popular tools, including the one we use in production, cover ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews only. Check before you buy.

Honest closing

I have gone back and forth on whether roundups like this one are useful, because the category churns fast enough that half these positioning statements will be wrong by Christmas.

What I keep coming back to is that the tool matters much less than the discipline. The single most valuable thing we did for the three brands in this article was not choosing a platform. It was writing down twenty unbranded prompts, capturing a baseline on day one, and then only changing one thing at a time so we could tell what worked.

You could do that in a spreadsheet. It would be slower and you would hate it by week three, which is the actual argument for buying software. But the spreadsheet version would still beat a $30,000 enterprise contract that nobody logs into.

Pick the cheapest thing that covers the engines your buyers use, write down your number today, and go fix one page.