Comparison
AI visibility tools for agencies, compared honestly.
Every figure below was read from the vendor's own site on . Blanks mean the vendor does not publish it, not that the feature is missing.
We build one of these, so read this with that in mind. What follows is what we would tell an agency that asked us in a call, including the cases where the answer is somebody else.
The short version: these tools split into two jobs. Some watch what AI says about a brand and report movement. Some audit a site and tell you what to change. Agencies usually need the second to sell the work and the first to prove it worked, and most tools only do one.
| Tool | What it is | Agency price | Sites | Checked | Models |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greater Than Services | AI visibility plus a CRO, GEO and ASO audit with fix code | $399/mo | 20 monitored | Weekly | 4 (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity) |
| Trakkr | AI visibility monitoring | $500/mo (Scale) | 10 brands | Daily | 8 |
| CiteFlow | AI visibility scanning and rescanning | $99/mo (Standard) | 3 websites | Up to 15 rescans/day | 6 named (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, AI Overviews) |
| AuditZap | Technical site audit with AI-written fixes | $29/mo (Pro) | Up to 50 pages per audit, 100 audits/day | Weekly and monthly re-audits | not published |
| AI Search Visibility | Single-page GEO audit, pay as you go | $5+ one-time packs | 1 page per credit | On demand | 3 |
Prices are the cheapest published plan an agency would realistically buy, taken from each vendor's pricing page rather than its homepage. Several also sell one-off reports and free tiers, noted below.
What each one is actually good at
Greater Than Servicesours
Best at: The cheapest per client site here at $20 a site a month, and the only one that audits conversion and agent-readability alongside AI visibility rather than AI visibility on its own.
Where it stops: Four models, weekly rather than daily, and 15 custom prompts a month rather than 50 per brand. For same-day movement across eight engines this is the wrong tool.
Copy-paste fix code for every finding · CRO + GEO + ASO in one audit · All reports white-labeled · Competitor share of voice · Batch audit up to 5 sites · API access
Trakkr
Best at: The deepest monitoring here by a distance. Daily across eight models, 50 prompts per brand, client portals, and an MCP server so assistants can query it directly.
Where it stops: Monitoring is the product: it reports where a client stands rather than giving you the change to make. Their own pricing page puts it at about $50 per client, the dearest per site here, and domain white-labelling costs extra on top.
Client portals, unlimited team and client access · White-label your domain (add-on) · REST API access · 100 articles/mo · MCP access · 14-day free trial · Growth tier $100/mo for one client
CiteFlow
Best at: Widest engine list, and fifteen rescans a day makes before-and-after proof trivial once you have shipped a fix.
Where it stops: Three websites on the published plan, so a larger portfolio means several subscriptions. No white-label option is published.
Free scan in ~30 seconds · Full 7-dimension breakdown · Before/after rescan comparison · Now / Next / Later priority plan · URL slots kept even if you cancel
AuditZap
Best at: Extraordinary value. $29/mo buys 100 audits a day, scheduled re-audits, email alerts and a white-label PDF. If your work is technical fixes on client sites, start here.
Where it stops: It audits the site. It does not ask the assistants what they say about your client, so there is no citation share and no competitor view.
40 checks · Platform-specific fixes (WordPress, Shopify, Webflow) · Revenue-impact ranking · Clean white-label PDF · Email alerts · Free forever tier, 3 audits/mo · One-off full report $9
AI Search Visibility
Best at: The only one here with no subscription at all. Credits never expire, so occasional use costs almost nothing.
Where it stops: A credit buys one page, not a site, and there is no ongoing monitoring or white-label.
Free tier, 5 audits · GEO score 0-10 across 7 dimensions · No subscription, credits never expire · Copy-ready fixes with code snippets · Export as PDF or Markdown
Which one to buy
First, a distinction that decides most of this. Three of these tools ask the assistants what they say about your client and report back. Two audit the client's site and tell you what to change. They are not competing products, and comparing their prices is comparing a bicycle to a van.
If your work is technical fixes, buy AuditZap and stop reading. $29/mo buys 100 audits a day, 40 checks, scheduled re-audits, email alerts and a white-label PDF. We charge more than that and we are not going to pretend otherwise. What it does not do is ask ChatGPT what it says about your client, so there is no citation share and no competitor view.
If you want the deepest AI monitoring, buy Trakkr. Daily checks across eight models with 50 prompts per brand is more measurement than anyone here offers, plus an MCP server so assistants can query it directly. $500/mo for ten brands, and it reports where you stand rather than what to change.
With three clients or fewer, CiteFlow is cheaper than us. $99/mo covers three websites with up to fifteen rescans a day, which makes before-and-after proof easy. Past three clients you are buying a second subscription and the maths stops working.
For an occasional one-off, nothing beats pay-as-you-go. AI Search Visibility sells audit packs from $5 with no subscription and credits that never expire. If you check a site twice a year, a monthly plan from anyone is the wrong shape.
Buy ours when you have a portfolio and need to bill for the work. Two reasons. Per client site we are the cheapest AI visibility monitoring here: $399/mo across 20 sites is $20 a site, against $50 at Trakkr, which is the figure on their own pricing page, and $33 at CiteFlow. And we are the only one that audits conversion and agent-readability alongside AI visibility, so a single pass gives you three kinds of work to quote for rather than one dashboard to read out. If you need eight engines checked daily, we are the wrong tool.
Why engine coverage matters less than it looks
We put 50 buyer questions to four assistants and recorded every website each one read. Two assistants asked the same question shared about 7% of their sources. Depending on the industry, between 74% and 85% of the websites cited were read by one assistant and no other.
So adding engines does not sharpen one picture, it adds separate pictures. Pick the engines your clients' customers use rather than the largest number on a pricing page.
Read the study, every question, every source, and the raw data as a free CSV under CC BY 4.0.
See what a white-labeled report looks like
Run one on a client site. Free preview, full report $4.99, no subscription needed to look.
Run an audit