Best AI visibility tools in 2026, compared on published facts

Which AI visibility tool should you use? Twenty-four platforms, compared on published facts: pricing model, entry price, engines named, API and MCP access, raw answer traceability. Every line is sourced from the vendor's own public pages, read on 2026-08-18, and the method is at the end.

Epovest is one of the twenty-four, and it sits where its published entry price puts it, like everyone else. The table carries no score and no ranking, because a score is an opinion with a number in front of it: the order is the entry price each vendor publishes, and you can check every cell yourself.

How this list was built

The twenty-four tools were not picked by hand. They are the AI visibility platforms the engines themselves name or cite when our panels ask this market's buying questions: which AI visibility platform should I use, what is the best tool to track how AI assistants talk about my brand, what tools do agencies use for white label AI visibility reports. Those questions run weekly against six engines, in English and in French, and every answer is archived with its sources (the full numbers are in our study of what AI assistants actually cite).

That is the whole selection rule: a tool enters this page because the engines put it in front of buyers, not because we know it or like it. It also means the list moves on its own. Seventeen names entered it since the July edition.

The comparison

"Not specified" and "Not mentioned" describe the state of the vendor's public pages on the read date. They say what the page says, nothing about what the product does: a vendor who publishes the missing fact gets the row updated, with the date.

What the engine counts mean

The counts above are the engines each vendor names on its pricing or product page, which is not always the number a given plan tracks. Three cases are worth reading closely, and they are in the rows: AEO Vision names five engines and its $9 tier tracks one; Ayzeo includes ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews at $39 and sells the five others at $29 per month each; Profound's published tiers restrict coverage below the enterprise plans.

The engines named across the table are ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Grok, Copilot, DeepSeek, Mistral, Google AI Overviews, AI Mode, Meta AI and Bing. No vendor in the table names all twelve, and the twelve are not equivalent: an engine that answers from a live web search cites differently from one answering from its weights, which is why the count alone settles nothing.

What each tool is, per its own pages

Epovest measures how AI assistants answer your market's questions, through the engines' official APIs, at your rhythm from daily to monthly. There is no subscription: you buy credits and only the surveys that run are debited, at $0.10 per prompt, per engine, per survey. Every answer is archived with its cited sources, so every rate traces back to raw text. Changing prompts, engines, rhythm or resolution starts a new version of the series instead of rewriting history. Its interface is one of the best there is: exemplary ergonomics and a modern design. The REST API and the MCP server ship with every account, so your own AI assistant can read and drive everything the app shows. Agencies run it one project per client, from one account and one prepaid balance.

Siftly publishes a free tier at $0 with 100 tracked responses per month, then paid tiers at $79, $249 and $599, each stated in tracked responses per month rather than in prompts.

Keyword.com is a rank tracker that added AI visibility to its SEO tracking. Its search tier starts at $3 per month billed annually; the AI visibility tier is published at $7.83 per month billed annually, and its higher tier covers Google and AI search together.

AEO Vision publishes three tiers, from $9 for thirty prompts tracked every three days on one engine, to $299 for a hundred daily prompts across six.

Rankscale publishes plans from $20 per month, with Pro at $99 and Enterprise at $780, and names ten engines including Mistral and DeepSeek.

Ayzeo prices per project, one included at $39 per month, and sells engines as add-ons: ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews are in the base plan, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, DeepSeek and Grok are $29 per month each.

RankPrompt runs on monthly credits, published as $470 per year on its annual plan, where a credit buys a prompt, an article or a Lighthouse audit.

LLM Pulse publishes its grid in seven currencies, from EUR 49 per month monthly, EUR 41 on the annual plan, and names eleven engines.

AmICited tracks brand citations on a credit allowance per month, from EUR 50 for 3,000 AI responses, and lists a full answer archive among its features.

AI Clicks publishes three tiers from $59, and lets each plan pick a set number of engines from its list rather than covering all of them.

Mentionable tracks seven named engines from EUR 79 per month for one project and 115 tracked prompts, with usage beyond the plan billed per scan and a spending cap you set.

Dageno publishes $79, $199 and $499 tiers, all with daily to monthly reporting, counted in agent credits.

Mint starts at $80 per month for one brand, and prices its higher tiers around multilingual tracking.

Rankfender publishes plans from $89 per month, with one brand, one domain and one language at entry, and fifteen tracked prompts.

Profound is an enterprise-oriented answer-engine monitoring platform, published at $99 per month billed yearly and $399 for its next tier. What the rest of this table publishes at that same money is in our guide to Profound alternatives.

Sight starts at $99 per month with 5,000 AI credits, extra sites at $59 and extra seats at $29, up to a $2,500 tier.

Omnia publishes from EUR 63 per month with credit packs sold separately, at EUR 10 for 150 credits, and pushes optimised content to your CMS.

Scrunch publishes a Core plan at $250 per month for teams evaluating AI visibility and establishing benchmarks.

Athena publishes a Starter plan at $295 per month and gives $25 of free credit to begin.

Cognizo starts at $499 per month for its insights and content agents, and $899 for the tier that publishes content end to end.

Evertune publishes a single figure, $800 per month for 100,000 prompts tracked across eleven AI models.

Peec AI, Otterly and Geneo run on subscriptions whose amounts were not published on the pages read on 2026-08-18.

How to choose

Three questions separate these tools faster than any feature list.

How do you want to pay? Twenty-three of the twenty-four run on subscriptions, from $0 to $800 per month at entry, and several sell engines, projects or seats on top. Epovest is the one prepaid tool in the table: $0.10 per prompt, per engine, per survey, debited only when a survey runs, with a $10 minimum top-up and credits that never expire. The question is not which is cheaper in the abstract, it is whether your measurement is regular enough to fill a subscription. What a year of measurement costs, tool by tool, is in our guide to GEO tools.

Which engines actually run on your plan? The engine count in a comparison table is the vendor's list, not your coverage. Read the row, then the tier: one tool tracks a single engine at its entry price, another includes two and sells five more at $29 each, a third restricts coverage below its enterprise plans. The same twenty-four tools, lined up on the answer engines they cover, are in our guide to AEO tools.

Can you audit a number? A visibility rate you cannot trace to the answers behind it cannot be defended in front of a client or a boardroom. Two vendors in this table state that they keep the raw answers: AmICited lists a full answer archive, and Epovest archives every answer with its cited sources. What the other twenty-two publish on that point, and in what words, is in our guide to LLM tracking tools.

Which sources do the answers stand on? A rate says where you stand; the domains the engines lean on say where to go next, and it is not the same list from one engine to the next. The same twenty-four tools, read on what each publishes about analysing those sources, are in our guide to AI citation analysis.

Method

Selection: the AI visibility platforms named or cited by the six engines on this market's buying questions, measured on our own panels in English and French, weekly, every answer archived. No tool was added or removed by hand.

Facts: read on each vendor's public pricing and product pages on 2026-08-18. Base prices only; promotional discounts and limited-time offers are ignored. Where a vendor publishes both a monthly and an annual price, the row states which one it is. "Engines named" counts the engines a vendor names on those pages; where a plan restricts them, the restriction is in the row. "API" and "MCP server" state whether the vendor mentions them on the pages read, and at which tier when the page says so.

Order: published entry price, ascending, at its nominal amount in the currency the vendor publishes, then the tools whose price is not published. The comparison contains no score and no ranking.

Corrections: a vendor who publishes a missing or changed fact gets the row updated with the read date. Write to us and the correction is logged below, dated.

Figures may be reused with attribution.

Corrections

2026-08-18: table extended from seven tools to twenty-four, on the July to August measurement. All figures re-read on 2026-08-18.

2026-08-01: Epovest tracks six engines since 2026-07-31 (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Mistral, Grok). The row read four, the coverage on the read date.