What an AI visibility audit costs.
A one-off audit is $19; monitoring subscriptions start at $29 to $99 a month. Which you need depends on whether you are diagnosing or tracking.
The entry prices of five tools as they stood on 2026-09-13, an honest split between the two kinds of product, and what ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity actually link to when a buyer asks these questions, from an audit of our own site.
How much does an AI visibility audit tool cost per month?
Between $29 and $99 a month at the entry tier for the monitoring tools, and $19 once for a one-off audit. The table shows what each entry tier includes, as verified on 2026-09-13. Vendors change prices and tiers without notice; the source link is the place to check.
| Tool | Model | Entry price | What the entry tier includes | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citeshare | One-off | $19 | 20 questions × 5 engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity 3×; Gemini, Grok 1×), saved answers, CSV, fixes pack. EUR 19 or GBP 16 incl. VAT in the EU and UK. | faq |
| Otterly | Subscription | $29/mo | 15 prompts. The next tier is $189/mo for 100 prompts. | otterly.ai/pricing |
| Peec AI | Subscription | €85/mo | 25 prompts. Pro €205, Advanced €425 (August 2026 prices; €70, €180 and €360 on annual billing). Third-party review, not the vendor's own page. | geoptie.com |
| Profound | Subscription | $99/mo | Starter tracks ChatGPT only. Larger plans are quoted on request; third-party pricing pages put them at about $399/mo and up. | thatmarketingbuddy.com |
| Semrush AI Toolkit | Subscription | $99/mo | 25 prompts, per domain. | semrush.com/pricing |
Two of the five prices come from third-party pages rather than the vendor: Peec's from a review, Profound's from a pricing aggregator, because neither vendor publishes a full price list. Treat those two as reported, not quoted.
When is a one-off audit enough, and when do you need a subscription?
A one-off audit is enough when the job is a diagnosis: find out which buyer questions you lose and to whom, fix the site, and re-run in 30 days to see whether anything moved. A subscription is the right tool when the job is tracking: reporting to clients every month, watching a number daily, or following many prompts across many engines over time.
The two products overlap less than their marketing suggests. A monitoring tool re-asks the same prompts on a schedule and charts the trend; the diagnosis is a by-product. A one-off audit stops at the diagnosis and the fixes; there is no trend until you run it again.
To be plain about what Citeshare does not do: there are no dashboards, no daily tracking and no alerts. You get a report page that stays up, an emailed link, and the option to run it again. If you manage AI visibility for several clients, or need to show a chart of the last twelve weeks, buy a subscription.
What do the engines answer today when someone asks?
We ran the full audit on citeshare.ai itself on 2026-09-13: 20 buyer questions for the category "AI visibility audit tool", each put to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity, 220 answers in all, none failed. Ten of the twenty questions were about cost and alternatives. For each, the table shows the site linked in the most answers, its share of the 11 answers to that question, and the share of answers that linked no product at all.
| Buyer question | Most-linked site | Share of answers | No product linked |
|---|---|---|---|
| What's the best AI visibility audit tool for small SaaS founders on a budget? | supermarketers.ai | 64% | 0% |
| What are good alternatives to Otterly for small business owners? | aiclicks.io | 55% | 0% |
| Is Otterly worth it for a small business tracking AI mentions? | otterly.ai | 82% | 0% |
| Cheaper alternatives to Profound for tracking ChatGPT brand citations? | llmpulse.ai | 64% | 0% |
| Is Profound worth the price for a two-person marketing team? | tryprofound.com | 64% | 27% |
| What are the best alternatives to Peec for solo marketers? | layer3labs.io | 64% | 0% |
| Is Peec worth it compared to doing manual ChatGPT checks? | discoveredlabs.com | 45% | 18% |
| Peec vs Otterly for daily AI visibility tracking on a budget? | discoveredlabs.com | 64% | 0% |
| Simple alternatives to Otterly that check Grok and Gemini too? | rankability.com | 55% | 0% |
| How much does an AI visibility audit tool cost per month? | semrush.com | 82% | 9% |
Citeshare was linked in 0% of the 220 answers about its own category, and named in 0%. Across all twenty questions, 14% of answers linked no product at all. This page exists partly because of that result: the questions above are the ones a buyer asks, and on the day of the audit the engines answered them without us. A page that states the prices plainly, with sources, is the kind of page the engines were linking instead.
Who gets cited for these questions?
Over all 220 answers, nine sites were linked in 20 or more. Most of them sell or review monitoring tools, and the pages the engines linked are largely "alternatives to X" and comparison posts rather than product pages. The share is the number of answers in which the site was linked, out of 220.
| Site | Answers linked | Share of 220 | Questions (of 20) |
|---|---|---|---|
| tryprofound.com | 35 | 16% | 8 |
| geoptie.com | 34 | 15% | 11 |
| discoveredlabs.com | 31 | 14% | 8 |
| semrush.com | 24 | 11% | 6 |
| tryanalyze.ai | 21 | 10% | 8 |
| dageno.ai | 21 | 10% | 8 |
| rankability.com | 20 | 9% | 8 |
| writesonic.com | 20 | 9% | 7 |
| orchly.ai | 20 | 9% | 6 |
The engines differ in whom they lean on. Over its 60 answers ChatGPT linked tryprofound.com in 12 and orchly.ai in 11; Claude linked discoveredlabs.com in 8 and otterly.ai in 7; Perplexity linked geoptie.com in 21 and discoveredlabs.com in 18. Over 20 answers each, Gemini linked geoptie.com in 6 and Grok linked thatmarketingbuddy.com in 7.
Aggregators are counted separately because they are cited for everything: linkedin.com and g2.com were each linked in 23 answers, reddit.com in 21, zapier.com in 10, blog.hubspot.com in 9 and youtube.com in 8. For a small vendor, being discussed on those three is the lever the evidence ranks highest.
What does a $19 audit give you, and what does it not?
It gives you one complete run and the fixes; it does not give you a trend, a dashboard, or a recording of the consumer apps.
- 20 buyer questions × 5 engines. ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity are asked each question three times, Gemini and Grok once: 220 engine runs, every saved answer with its links.
- Losing and open questions, ranked rivals, per-engine breakdown, and a CSV of the whole matrix.
- 14 site checks: crawler permissions, llms.txt, schema, content without JavaScript, freshness and the rest.
- A fixes pack written for your site: answer-first FAQ copy for the questions you are losing, a robots.txt fix, JSON-LD and llms.txt, in that order of expected effect.
- Paid once via Stripe, on your free report; if the audit fails to complete, the payment is refunded automatically.
Two limits apply to every number in it. The engine APIs with web search are a proxy for the consumer apps, not a recording of them: the direction carries over, the exact percentages do not. And every rate is a frequency over runs, never a single answer; with three runs per cell the per-question figures are a direction, and the per-engine and audit-wide figures are the ones to track between re-runs. The methodology gives the error bars.
Method
All engine figures on this page come from audit 16, the full Citeshare audit of citeshare.ai run on 2026-09-13 with the category "AI visibility audit tool" and the competitors Otterly, Peec and Profound confirmed at checkout: 20 questions, 5 engines, 220 answers, 0 failed. The report is public at /example; the models, run counts, definitions of "linked" and "no product", and error bars are on the methodology page. Prices were checked by hand on 2026-09-13 at the linked sources. No number on this page is an estimate.