Best AI Search Agencies for AI Visibility Audits

Answer Capsule

Profound is the consensus leader for AI visibility audits, named by 4 of 7 platforms (57.1%) at an average listed position of 5.0 and a best position of 1. Peec AI is the strongest alternative for agencies that need multi-client, credit-based tracking with Looker Studio and MCP reporting, and Astiva AI is the lowest-cost qualifying option with published pricing and a GA4 attribution tier. This index studied 7 platforms — openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, and google — using one standardized prompt sent once to each. Of 45 unique entities named, 10 qualified by being named by at least two platforms. The principal limitation is that platform mentions count only ranking-discovery mentions, not fit-assessment completions, and several entities carry unresolved identity, pricing, or capability conflicts that buyers must verify directly.

Research Snapshot

• Topic: Best AI search and GEO agencies for AI visibility audits
• Target buyer: Companies seeking AI Search Agencies for AI Visibility Audits across AI search, generative-answer, and recommendation platforms
• Use case: AI Search Agencies for AI Visibility Audits
• Geography: United States
• Platforms included (7): openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, google
• Research date: 2026-09-18
• Unique entities named: 45
• Qualifying entities: 10
• Eligibility rule: Named by at least two platforms during ranking discovery
• Ranking unit: Audit company, audit service, or advisory provider

Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date for some platforms (for example, deepseek returned 2026-06-30 for Profound and 2026-06-01 for Astiva AI). Those dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

The Consensus Ranking

Questions This Section Answers

• What are the best AI search and GEO agencies for AI visibility audits in 2026?
• Which AI visibility audit providers were named by the most AI platforms, and how often?
• Which AI visibility audit provider ranked highest on average across the seven platforms studied?

The table below is the sole authority for rank, platform mentions, platform share, average listed position, and best position. Platform mentions count only ranking-discovery mentions, not the number of platforms that later completed a fit assessment.

Which Option Is Best for Which Version of the Buyer Need?

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI visibility audit provider should an agency choose if it needs transparent published pricing rather than a custom quote?
• Is Profound or Peec AI better for an agency auditing many client brands on a recurring basis?
• Which AI visibility audit provider is best for a one-time diagnostic rather than an ongoing monitoring subscription?

1. Profound

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Profound worth it for AI visibility audits, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which AI visibility audit platform should an agency choose if it needs SOC 2 Type II compliance and SSO/SAML?
• What does Profound cost for an agency running multi-client AI visibility audits?

Verdict. Profound is the consensus leader and the clearest fit for agencies auditing enterprise or multi-brand visibility across major consumer answer engines. It combines daily prompt runs, citation-source analysis, competitor benchmarking, and historical trend reporting in one platform, and its Enterprise tier is explicitly positioned for large companies and agencies ^[1]. The tradeoff is opacity: Enterprise pricing is quote-based, and the public documentation does not establish white-label reporting, scheduled client reports, or dashboard customization depth for the quoted package.

Why it ranked here. Profound was named by 4 of 7 platforms (57.1%) at an average listed position of 5.0, with a best position of 1. It was the only entity in this index named by four platforms, and it was ranked first by openai and second by anthropic. Its weakest placements came from kimi (9) and perplexity (8), both of which flagged unresolved identity or unverified capability claims.

Best suited for. Agencies auditing enterprise or multi-brand visibility across major consumer answer engines; recurring client reporting requiring competitor benchmarking, citation analysis, historical visibility measurement, and executive dashboards; and agencies that need agency workspaces, multiple companies, tailored prompt tracking, integrations, and enterprise security controls.

Main strengths for this use case. Enterprise is documented as capable of tracking ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Grok, DeepSeek, Anthropic Claude, and Google AI Overviews, with the public pricing page describing Enterprise as supporting up to nine answer engines ^[1]. Profound runs tracked prompts daily and supports recommended, custom, edited, disabled, and uploaded prompts ^[2]. Answer Engine Insights measures whether brands appear in responses, visibility score, share of voice, sentiment, ranking or position, and competitive presence ^[2]. The platform identifies cited websites and tracks how often answer engines cite a brand or related sources, with a Citation Authority feature intended to show which websites influence AI-generated answers ^[3]. Sources are classified as Owned, Competitor, Earned Media, PR Wire, Social, or Institution ^[4]. Profound states that Prompt Volumes uses anonymized real-user prompts from opt-in consumer panels with rolling weekly updates and less than two weeks of latency ^[5]. Enterprise support includes multiple-company tracking, tailored prompt plans, SSO/SAML, and SOC 2 compliance ^[1].

Main limitations. Enterprise pricing and exact quotas are opaque, making client-margin and audit-cost forecasting difficult ^[1]. Starter is ChatGPT-only and Growth lists three engines and 100 prompts, so neither lower tier is equivalent to an agency-scale multi-platform audit configuration ^[6]. Claude and Gemini coverage are Enterprise-only with no self-serve path ^[7]. Independent reviewers describe Profound as data-heavy and requiring a dedicated analyst ^[8].

2. Peec AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Peec AI or Profound better for an agency auditing multiple client brands on a recurring basis?
• What does Peec AI cost per month for an agency plan, and how are credits consumed?
• Does Peec AI include API, Looker Studio, and MCP access on every agency tier?

Verdict. Peec AI is the strongest alternative for agencies that need a multi-client operating layer rather than an enterprise analytics suite. Its agency page states that every tier includes unlimited client seats, Peec MCP, API, all six channels, Looker Studio, CSV exports, and daily tracking, with no per-seat fees [e2:official:C1]. The principal qualification is that agency pricing, exact credit economics, model availability by tier, data-retention terms, and cancellation terms require verification, and one platform rated the fit as mixed because of conflicting public information on which agency plan includes API, Looker Studio, and MCP access.

Why it ranked here. Peec AI was named by 3 of 7 platforms (42.9%) at an average listed position of 2.0, with a best position of 2. It was ranked second by openai, deepseek, and kimi — the most consistent placement of any entity in this index.

Best suited for. Agencies auditing multiple brands across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot; agencies needing recurring prompt-level measurement, citation tracking, competitor comparisons, and white-label or client-shareable dashboards; and agencies wanting API, MCP, Looker Studio, CSV, and automated reporting workflows.

Main strengths for this use case. The agency page states that agency plans track six channels: ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, and Gemini ^[9]. Peec tracks selected prompts daily and reports mention rate, average position, citations, sentiment, and related visibility metrics, with prompt libraries organized around decision-driving searches and segmented by model, country, and prompt tags ^[10]. Peec distinguishes sources used by an AI system from URLs explicitly cited in the visible answer and reports source usage at domain and URL levels ^[11]. Citation rate is defined as the percentage of tracked prompts where an LLM cites your website ^[12]. Agency plans include Looker Studio, CSV exports, API access, and Peec MCP, and the agency workflow supports branded read-only dashboards and automated summaries or slide-deck generation through MCP-connected tools ^[9]. Every agency plan includes free 7-day pitch projects that sit outside the client project quota [e2:official:C1].

Main limitations. Peec is a SaaS analytics platform and does not itself guarantee improved visibility or provide strategic advice beyond expressly described functionality; an agency must supply interpretation, recommendations, implementation, and client consulting ^[13]. Public pricing is not transparent enough to calculate cost per client, prompt, model, or audit ^[9]. The agency page contains duplicated and partly inconsistent statements about which features are included in every tier versus which advanced features scale by tier ^[9].

3. Astiva AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI visibility audit platform has the lowest published entry price, and what does the $99 Starter plan include?
• Is Astiva AI or Peec AI better for an agency that needs GA4 revenue attribution from AI citations?
• How many AI platforms does Astiva AI actually track on its Starter and Growth plans?

Verdict. Astiva AI is the lowest-cost qualifying option with published pricing, and it ranked first on average among the two platforms that named it. It is a good fit for small agencies and consultants needing citation-gap and competitor monitoring with prompt tracking, historical trends, and GA4-based outcome reporting. The unresolved conflict over platform coverage by tier and the Enterprise-only white-label limitation prevent an unqualified recommendation.

Why it ranked here. Astiva AI was named by 2 of 7 platforms (28.6%) at an average listed position of 1.0 — the best average position in this index — with a best position of 1. It was ranked first by both deepseek and kimi.

Best suited for. Small agencies or consultants needing low-cost citation-gap and competitor monitoring; agencies auditing several brands that need prompt tracking, historical trends, and GA4-based outcome reporting; and teams that can validate platform coverage, data methodology, and report-branding requirements before purchase.

Main strengths for this use case. Astiva's product page claims monitoring across 10 platforms, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Grok, Meta AI, DeepSeek, Mistral AI, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overview [e3:official:C1]. The product page describes daily automated queries, custom prompts, bulk prompt-library uploads, 24-hour data refresh, and 24-hour alerts, with published plan limits of 25 prompts on Starter and 100 on Growth ^[14]. Astiva reports visibility percentage, share of voice, average position, sentiment, first-mention rate, mention frequency, and sentiment volatility ^[15]. Starter and higher plans are described as including citation alerts, gaps, trends, overlaps, competitor intelligence, and citation-domain authority scoring ^[14]. Growth and higher plans are described as including native GA4 integration, traffic and conversion attribution, and revenue per AI citation ^[16]. Astiva publishes full methodology including 7 AISO metrics definitions, query sampling cadence, normalization accuracy definition, sentiment scoring logic, and freshness schedule ^[17].

Main limitations. The product page says every paid plan includes all 10 AI platforms, while the pricing page lists only 3 platforms on Starter, 5 on Growth, and 7 on Pro ^[18]. White-label reports and SSO/SAML are listed only for Enterprise [e3:official:C1]. The public evidence is primarily Astiva's own marketing and pricing pages, and independent validation of measurement accuracy, citation completeness, and GA4 attribution was not located ^[19]. Astiva focuses on competitive intelligence and visibility tracking, not full content generation, and does not generate finished content at scale ^[20]. SOC 2 Type II controls are described as implemented with the audit in progress, not yet completed. .

4. AI Search Engineers

Questions This Section Answers

• Is AI Search Engineers worth it for a professional-services firm that needs an AI visibility audit?
• Does AI Search Engineers include competitor benchmarking and historical trend reporting in its audit?
• What does the AI Search Engineers AI Visibility Audit cost, and is pricing published?

Verdict. AI Search Engineers is a plausible fit for a strategy-led, authority-focused diagnostic audit, especially for professional-service brands. It is not a clearly strong fit for buyers requiring transparent recurring measurement, historical trend reporting, competitor benchmarking, recommendation-share measurement, or executive dashboards, because those capabilities, pricing, and delivery terms are not publicly verified.

Why it ranked here. AI Search Engineers was named by 2 of 7 platforms (28.6%) at an average listed position of 2.5, with a best position of 1. It was ranked first by anthropic and fourth by grok.

Best suited for. Professional-service companies seeking a diagnostic audit and prioritized authority-gap action plan; businesses needing qualitative and technical analysis across ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Perplexity, and potentially Grok; and buyers that prefer an agency-led engagement rather than self-service software.

Main strengths for this use case. The company states that its audit evaluates entity recognition across ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Perplexity, and its website also names Grok among the platforms it targets ^[21]. The audit description includes controlled prompt testing across major AI answer engines ^[22]. The audit includes a trusted-source citation inventory and analysis of citation signals ^[23]. The company describes an output consisting of a specific authority-gap analysis and prioritized action plan rather than a keyword or traffic report ^[24]. The company says it works most deeply with law firms and also serves financial, healthcare, dental, moving, staffing, nonprofit, and other professional-service businesses ^[25]. Google reported that the audit is built on a five-signal framework covering entity clarity, third-party corroboration, structured data, topical authority, and documented outcomes ^[26].

Main limitations. The public audit description does not clearly promise competitor visibility comparisons, share-of-recommendation analysis, or competitor citation benchmarking ^[23]. The public materials describe an audit and prioritized action plan rather than a recurring monitoring product, and historical trend reporting, scheduled reruns, alerting, and longitudinal dashboards are not publicly verified ^[23]. No public evidence confirms an executive dashboard, role-based reporting, export formats, or board-level KPI summaries ^[23]. Pricing for the AI Search Visibility Audit or AI Visibility Audit Service was not publicly verified ^[27]. Methodology details such as prompt sampling, repetition, model versions, localization, and statistical treatment are not disclosed ^[23].

Pricing or cost summary. No public price, package fee, minimum engagement, or implementation rate was verified ^[23].

5. optiseo

Questions This Section Answers

• Is optiseo's AI Visibility Dashboard actually available to buy, or is it still a concept?
• Which AI visibility audit provider should a buyer avoid if they need a production-ready platform today?
• What did optiseo say about its own AI Visibility Dashboard pricing and launch status?

Verdict. optiseo is a weak fit for companies seeking an immediately deployable AI Search Agency or AI visibility-audit platform. Its relevant dashboard is explicitly described as an unlaunched concept with no confirmed product, coverage, pricing, or subscription terms. It may be relevant as a broader SEO and AI-search-readiness services provider.

Why it ranked here. optiseo was named by 2 of 7 platforms (28.6%) at an average listed position of 3.0, with a best position of 3. It was ranked third by both deepseek and kimi.

Best suited for. Buyers willing to discuss a future concept or provide feedback; and businesses seeking broader website, SEO, local-search, or AI-search-readiness services rather than a currently available audit platform.

Main strengths for this use case. The concept is directed at evaluating how businesses appear in AI-generated answers ^[28]. The broader company positioning includes AI-search readiness, technical SEO, content, schema, reviews, local authority, and tracking, which could be relevant to remediation after an audit ^[29]. Kimi reported that optiseo's marketing describes daily tracking across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity via official APIs with competitor benchmarking, citation tracking, sentiment scoring, and an actionable AI Playbook ^[30].

Main limitations. The AI Visibility Dashboard is not available; optiseo states it is an idea under consideration, development has not moved forward, and there is no confirmed launch date [e5:official:C1]. Supported AI models or platforms have not been confirmed, and the page states that model coverage is not established [e5:official:C1]. No prompt limits, scan schedule, recurring scans, or measurement methodology are confirmed [e5:official:C1]. Citation tracking, source attribution, citation-quality analysis, or citation exports are not confirmed [e5:official:C1]. Competitor benchmarking is not confirmed [e5:official:C1]. Historical reporting, trend views, report retention, scheduled reporting, exports, and API access are not confirmed [e5:official:C1]. A working dashboard, reporting format, screens, exports, or executive-reporting workflow is not available, and illustrative designs should not be treated as current capabilities [e5:official:C1].

Pricing or cost summary. No current price is verified for the AI Visibility Dashboard. The official page expressly says that pricing, discounts, subscriptions, and cancellation policies are unconfirmed, and that illustrative plans or offers shown in the design are not current commercial terms [e5:official:C1]. The supplied $79/month early-adopter or Starter-plan information conflicts with the current official disclosure ^[28]. Kimi reported Starter at $79/month or $63/month early adopter with 15 prompts and weekly scans, and Pro at $149/month or $119/month early adopter with 50 prompts and daily scans, but these figures are not corroborated by the official concept page ^[30]. .

6. BeCited

Questions This Section Answers

• Is BeCited worth it for a one-time AI visibility audit, and what does the $2,000 Full Audit include?
• Which AI visibility audit provider should a buyer choose if they want human-reviewed citation analysis rather than automated scoring?
• Does BeCited include continuous monitoring, or is it a point-in-time audit only?

Verdict. BeCited is a good fit for companies needing a hands-on, point-in-time AI visibility audit across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Claude. It is less suitable for buyers requiring a continuously accessible dashboard, broad platform coverage beyond four engines, automated agency-scale monitoring, or clearly documented enterprise contract terms.

Why it ranked here. BeCited was named by 2 of 7 platforms (28.6%) at an average listed position of 4.5, with a best position of 4. It was ranked fourth by kimi and fifth by deepseek.

Best suited for. Companies wanting a human-reviewed baseline audit with competitor and source analysis; buyers prioritizing recommendation and mention measurement over conventional search rankings; and teams needing an executive-readable score, source map, prompt gap analysis, and prioritized action plan.

Main strengths for this use case. The Full Audit covers four AI engines — ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Claude — using 100–300 buying-intent prompts [e6:official:C1]. BeCited states that it measures whether the buyer is mentioned or recommended for real buying-intent prompts, with prompt-by-prompt gap analysis and manual review of answers ^[31]. The Full Audit includes a map of platforms cited by AI, while the methodology describes a Source Influence Map and source tiering based on category-specific AI trust rather than conventional domain authority ^[32]. The service uses the buyer's real competitors, reports competitor comparisons, and describes a score that incorporates how the company compares with competitors ^[33]. The Quarterly plan includes a quarterly re-run, delta report, trend tracking over time, and an updated action plan ^[34]. BeCited says every answer is personally reviewed, brand variants are matched manually, and competitor lists are narrowed manually, with approximately 72% agreement between two blind scorers ^[35].

Main limitations. Coverage is limited to four named engines; broader AI search, answer, shopping, local, social, or recommendation coverage is not verified ^[31]. The Full Audit is a point-in-time diagnostic, and BeCited disclaims guarantees of future visibility ^[36]. The public offer emphasizes reports and calls, not a persistent dashboard, API, automated alerts, or agency-scale client management ^[31]. The Snapshot is narrow: ten prompts on Perplexity and one-engine scoring [e6:official:C1]. Published site-readiness counts are inconsistent across BeCited pages, including 15, 19, and 19 signals ^[37]. The methodology, scoring, and reported validation statistics are primarily company-published and lack identified independent verification ^[38].

Pricing or cost summary. Public pricing lists Snapshot at $199 one-time, Full Audit at $2,000 one-time, and Quarterly at $1,500 per quarter [e6:official:C1].

7. Virayo AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Virayo AI worth it for a B2B SaaS company that wants an agency-led AI visibility audit?
• What is the minimum monthly cost and contract term for a Virayo AI engagement?
• Can Virayo AI be purchased as a standalone platform without agency services?

Verdict. Virayo AI is a good fit for companies wanting an agency-led AI visibility audit and ongoing optimization across major generative-answer platforms. It publicly describes multi-platform auditing, weekly prompt tracking, citation and mention measurement, competitor benchmarking, trend reporting, and agency interpretation. Fit is reduced for buyers seeking a standalone, self-service product, transparent SaaS pricing, broad geographic localization, or independently validated measurement methodology.

Why it ranked here. Virayo AI was named by 2 of 7 platforms (28.6%) at an average listed position of 4.5, with a best position of 4. It was ranked fourth by deepseek and fifth by kimi.

Best suited for. B2B companies that want an agency to interpret AI-search visibility data and prioritize corrective actions; buyers needing recurring monitoring across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews; and teams valuing citation-gap, inaccuracy, competitor, and share-of-voice analysis more than standalone software access.

Main strengths for this use case. Virayo states that the platform audits ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews, covering both training-data representation and live-search behavior ^[39]. Virayo describes weekly tracked prompts and a free audit based on 20 brand-relevant prompts ^[39]. Publicly described metrics include mention rate, citation rate, average position, share of voice, a composite 0-100 Visibility Score, and inaccuracies ^[39]. Virayo states that it tracks citations weekly, identifies inaccurate claims, traces inaccuracies to source pages, and detects when a brand is sourced but not recommended ^[40]. The platform publicly shows competitor comparison and states that tracked prompts measure competitive positioning, share of voice, and average position against named competitors ^[39]. Virayo says the platform is included in every Virayo engagement and that a senior strategist runs the account ^[39]. Google reported that the platform offers a Model Context Protocol integration that lets clients query their audit data directly inside Claude ^[41].

Main limitations. The platform appears to be bundled with agency services rather than offered as a clearly documented standalone product ^[39]. Pricing, contract structure, service-level commitments, and included usage limits are not public ^[39]. Public materials do not document statistical confidence, repeatability controls, geographic personalization, prompt randomization, or independent validation ^[39]. The public evidence does not confirm white-label reporting, API access, bulk client management, data export, or executive-dashboard customization ^[39]. A distinct recommendation-rate metric and detailed historical-retention policy are unclear ^[39]. Anthropic reported that Virayo explicitly targets post-product-market-fit B2B SaaS and tech companies, which is a narrow focus ^[42]. .

8. OtterlyAI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is OtterlyAI worth it for an agency running recurring AI visibility audits across multiple client brands?
• What does OtterlyAI cost per month, and which AI engines cost extra as add-ons?
• Does OtterlyAI offer native white-label reporting, or must agencies build reports in Looker Studio?

Verdict. OtterlyAI is a credible shortlist candidate for AI Search Agencies performing AI visibility audits, especially agencies prioritizing prompt-level tracking, competitor benchmarking, citation analysis, historical trends, and recurring GEO recommendations. Premium is the most relevant published tier, while Enterprise should be evaluated for high-volume, custom, or governance-heavy programs. Purchase should be contingent on verifying agency reporting, white-labeling, usage limits, add-on costs, and contract terms.

Why it ranked here. OtterlyAI was named by 2 of 7 platforms (28.6%) at an average listed position of 5.0, with a best position of 5. It was ranked fifth by both anthropic and openai.

Best suited for. Agencies needing recurring visibility audits across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot; agencies benchmarking client brands against competitors using mentions, share of voice, rankings, sentiment, and cited domains; and agencies needing historical trend reporting, citation discovery, GEO recommendations, exports, API access, or Looker Studio integration.

Main strengths for this use case. Published plans track ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot, with Google AI Mode, Gemini, and Claude available as add-ons [e8:official:C2]. Lite includes 15 prompts, Standard 100, and Premium 400, with tracking described as daily [e8:official:C2]. OtterlyAI reports brand mentions, share of voice, average rank, sentiment, brand coverage, rankings, and domain coverage, and provides automatically generated recommendations and exports, though recommendations are explicitly described as beta ^[43]. The platform identifies cited URLs, tracks citation frequency and trends, indicates whether a cited page mentions the tracked brand or competitors, and supports citation-detail analysis and content-gap investigation ^[44]. Users can add unlimited competitors according to the help documentation, and compare share of voice, brand coverage over time, rankings, domain citations, and prompts where competitors appear but the client does not ^[45]. Premium is positioned for mid-sized businesses and agencies and includes 400 prompts, API access, MCP access, Agent Analytics, unlimited recommendations, and unlimited workspaces ^[46].

Main limitations. The four core engines do not include Google AI Mode, Gemini, or Claude without add-on charges [e8:official:C2]. Prompt limits may constrain agencies running many clients, markets, or prompt variants ^[46]. Recommendations are beta and may include tactics that do not fit every client, and custom recommendations and external task-management sync are not supported ^[43]. Public materials do not establish the maturity of white-labeling, client-facing portals, role permissions, dashboard customization, or agency-level data isolation ^[46]. Multiple sources note that users request more granular historical data and deeper long-term trend analysis, and Agent Analytics remains in closed early access ^[47]. OtterlyAI does not include a backlink index, traditional keyword rank tracking, or a content generation engine ^[48]. .

9. Sona

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Sona worth it for an agency that needs to connect AI visibility to pipeline and CRM data?
• What does Sona's AI Visibility product cost for brands and for agencies?
• Does Sona offer white-label reporting and multi-client agency administration?

Verdict. Sona is a good fit for AI Search Agencies conducting recurring United States AI visibility audits that prioritize broad engine coverage, prompt-level monitoring, citation analysis, competitor benchmarking, historical trends, and dashboard integration. Treat Sona as a platform to validate through the trial and a detailed agency quote rather than as a fully verified agency-ready solution, because public dollar pricing, white-label and multi-client controls, independent accuracy evidence, and recommendation-specific measurement remain unclear.

Why it ranked here. Sona was named by 2 of 7 platforms (28.6%) at an average listed position of 6.0, with a best position of 6. It was ranked sixth by both deepseek and kimi.

Best suited for. Agencies running recurring audits across multiple client brands and AI answer engines; teams needing prompt-level visibility, mentions, share of voice, sentiment, citation-source analysis, competitor comparisons, and historical reporting; and agencies that need CSV/PDF exports or API connectivity for client dashboards.

Main strengths for this use case. Sona states that it tracks 10+ AI engines, including ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Grok, Meta AI, DeepSeek, Google AI Overview, and Amazon Rufus ^[49]. Users can define buyer prompts, organize them into topics, track prompt visibility, position, mentions, share of voice, volume, locations, and sentiment, and run prompts daily across selected engines and regions ^[50]. Sona reports retrieval and citation rates, source-type breakdowns, per-prompt source attribution, and domain- and URL-level analysis, and states that retrieved sources can be distinguished from sources actually cited in answers ^[51]. Sona states that competitors are ranked by visibility, position, share of voice, and sentiment for tracked prompts, with watchlists, competitor alerts, and identification of prompts where competitors outperform the client ^[51]. The module advertises daily visibility scores, share-of-voice trends, per-engine and per-prompt drilldowns, and reporting by region, language, platform, and topic, with CSV or PDF exports and API access for BI dashboards ^[51]. Sona states support for 150+ regions and 30+ languages, with side-by-side geographic comparisons ^[51]. Sona uniquely ties every AI citation back to an account timeline that already includes ad, web, and CRM data ^[52].

Main limitations. Dollar pricing for the recommended module is not publicly verified, complicating agency margin and client-pass-through calculations ^[51]. Credit and prompt limits make cost scale depend on engine count, region count, prompt volume, run cadence, and premium-model usage ^[51]. Public pages do not clearly document white-labeling, multi-client agency administration, bulk client provisioning, or reseller terms ^[51]. No independent validation was identified for coverage accuracy, answer reproducibility, citation completeness, or historical comparability ^[51]. A separately defined recommendation metric is unclear ^[51].

10. Feisworld Media

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Feisworld Media worth it for a SaaS company that needs a one-time AI visibility audit?
• What does the Feisworld Media AI Visibility Audit cost, and which AI platforms does it cover?
• Does Feisworld Media include ongoing monitoring and historical trend reporting in its audit?

Verdict. Feisworld Media is a good fit for an established company seeking a custom, human-led AI visibility audit with citation mapping, competitor analysis, authority-gap diagnosis, and a fixed-fee action roadmap. The fit is weaker for buyers whose core requirements are ongoing prompt tracking, historical trend reporting, broad platform coverage, quantified recommendation measurement, or executive dashboards.

Why it ranked here. Feisworld Media was named by 2 of 7 platforms (28.6%) at an average listed position of 7.5, with a best position of 7. It was ranked seventh by kimi and eighth by deepseek.

Best suited for. SaaS companies with an established web presence and low visibility in AI-generated answers; marketing teams seeking a strategy-led audit rather than software access; companies wanting competitor citation analysis and a 90-day action roadmap; and buyers preferring a fixed-fee project with an executive summary and walkthrough.

Main strengths for this use case. The audit explicitly covers ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, and Gemini [e10:official:C1]. Citation mapping and identification of third-party sources used by AI systems are explicit deliverables [e10:official:C1]. Competitor citation analysis is included, including identification of content, links, mentions, reviews, and third-party sources associated with competitors [e10:official:C1]. An executive summary presentation and 30-minute walkthrough call are included [e10:official:C1]. The deliverable includes an entity and authority gap report plus a prioritized 90-day visibility roadmap covering content, mentions, platforms, and partnerships [e10:official:C1]. The audit is custom rather than template-based, is delivered in two weeks from kickoff, and is limited to a stated number of audits per month [e10:official:C1]. The stated target includes SaaS companies with $1M-$20M ARR, marketing teams with SEO investment but low AI visibility, and founders observing competitors being cited [e10:official:C1].

Main limitations. No stated continuous monitoring, prompt library, or recurring measurement cadence ^[53]. No stated historical trend reports or dashboard access ^[53]. No disclosed methodology for query selection, sampling, personalization, geography, model version, or reproducibility ^[53]. No explicit measurement framework for recommendation share, sentiment, conversion impact, or answer-share changes ^[53]. Coverage beyond ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, and Gemini is unclear ^[53]. The advertised service is a diagnostic and roadmap, and implementation responsibility and scope are not fully specified ^[53]. Anthropic reported that the AI Visibility Audit landing page does not publicly detail what is included: number of audit prompts tested, platforms covered, competitor analysis scope, technical crawl depth, schema analysis, or report length ^[54].

Pricing or cost summary. The official page lists the AI Visibility Audit at $7,500 as a one-time fixed fee, with no retainer required [e10:official:C1].

What the Cross-Platform Study Reveals About This Market

Questions This Section Answers

• What does the cross-platform AI consensus reveal about how AI visibility audit providers are positioned in 2026?
• Which types of AI visibility audit providers get recommended most often by AI platforms?

Three structural patterns emerge from this study. First, the market splits cleanly into software platforms and service-led audits, and the two categories rarely overlap. Profound, Peec AI, Astiva AI, OtterlyAI, and Sona are platforms that an agency operates; AI Search Engineers, BeCited, Virayo AI, and Feisworld Media are engagements that an agency or consultancy delivers. optiseo sits outside both because its relevant dashboard is an unlaunched concept [e5:official:C1].

Second, pricing transparency is inversely related to enterprise positioning. The entities with the most published pricing — Astiva AI, OtterlyAI, BeCited, and Feisworld Media — are the ones positioned for smaller or project-based buyers, while Profound, Peec AI, Virayo AI, and Sona either withhold dollar pricing or gate it behind a quote ^[55].

Third, engine coverage claims are consistently broader than verified coverage. Profound's public pricing page describes Enterprise as supporting up to nine answer engines while other marketing material lists a broader set ^[55]. Astiva's product page claims 10 platforms while its pricing page lists 3, 5, and 7 by tier ^[59]. Sona's public pages describe both 10+ AI engines and different visible engine lists ^[60].

Where the AI Platforms Agreed

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI visibility audit providers did the AI platforms agree on most strongly?
• What capabilities do the AI platforms consistently expect from an AI visibility audit provider?

The platforms agreed on several points. Profound is the most-named entity and the only one named by four platforms, and both openai and anthropic rated its fit as strong or good with broad engine coverage as the primary advantage ^[61]. Peec AI received the most consistent placement of any entity, ranked second by all three platforms that named it, and multiple platforms independently described its agency architecture with unlimited seats and no per-seat fees [e2:official:C1]^[63].

The platforms also agreed that citation tracking and competitor benchmarking are table stakes. Every qualifying entity's evidence bundle discusses citation analysis, and every entity except optiseo is credited with some form of competitor comparison. Multiple platforms independently noted that AI answers vary by model, geography, prompt wording, and date, and that daily tracking improves trend comparability but does not establish that measurements are independently validated ^[65].

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed

Questions This Section Answers

• Where did the AI platforms disagree about AI visibility audit providers, and what should buyers verify as a result?
• Which AI visibility audit providers received conflicting fit ratings across platforms?

Disagreements clustered in three areas. The first is entity identity. Profound's official domain is unresolved, with profound.com historically hosting a general market research database and tryprofound.com hosting the AI visibility platform ^[67]. AI Search Engineers has a similar conflict, with the supplied.com URL returning a fetch error while the accessible site is.ai ^[69]. Sona shares its brand name with several unrelated companies ^[70].

The second is product availability. optiseo received a good fit rating from kimi based on marketing claims about daily API-based tracking, while google, grok, openai, and anthropic all rated it weak because the official page states the dashboard has not launched ^[71][e5:official:C1].

The third is tier-level feature inclusion. Peec AI's agency page says every tier includes API and advanced integrations while another section says API, multi-country, SSO, and advanced features may scale with tier ^[72]. OtterlyAI's pricing crawl produced inconsistent representations of monthly and annual pricing [e8:official:C2]. Astiva's product and pricing pages conflict on paid-plan platform coverage ^[73].

How Buyers Should Choose

Questions This Section Answers

• What should a buyer check before choosing an AI visibility audit provider for an agency engagement?
• Which AI visibility audit provider should a buyer choose if they need both a platform and a managed service?

Start by deciding whether you are buying software or a service. If you need recurring, multi-client measurement that your team operates, the platform candidates are Profound, Peec AI, Astiva AI, OtterlyAI, and Sona. If you need a diagnostic that a human delivers, the service candidates are AI Search Engineers, BeCited, Virayo AI, and Feisworld Media.

Then verify four things in writing. First, the exact engine list included in your quoted tier, because every platform in this index gates at least one major engine behind a higher tier or add-on ^[74][e8:official:C2]. Second, the credit or prompt consumption formula, because Peec AI, OtterlyAI, and Sona all price on volume rather than seats ^[75][e8:official:C2]^[76]. Third, whether white-label reporting and multi-client administration are included, because Profound, Peec AI, OtterlyAI, and Sona all leave this unclear in public materials ^[77]. Fourth, the contract term and cancellation rules, because Virayo AI is reported at a six-month minimum and BeCited's quarterly renewal terms are not published ^[81].

For a broader view of the agencies operating in this category, see the ai search geo agencies directory.

Methodology

This study used one standardized prompt sent once to each of seven included platforms: openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, and google. The prompt asked which AI search agencies would be recommended for an AI visibility audit and why, describing an audit that examines recommendations, mentions, citations, important prompts, competitor performance, citation architecture, influential source domains, content and authority gaps, and practical opportunities for improvement.

The research date is 2026-09-18. Platform-reported research dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness; deepseek returned earlier dates for some entities.

The ranking rule is platform mentions first, then average listed position, then best listed rank. Platform mentions count only ranking-discovery mentions — the platforms that named the entity during ranking discovery — not the number of platforms that later completed a fit assessment. All included platforms evaluated fit, but only naming platforms count toward mentions.

Eligibility required being named by at least two platforms. Of 45 unique entities named, 10 qualified. The final ranking table is the sole authority for rank, platform mentions, platform share, average rank, and best rank.

Citations are platform-reported evidence, not independently verified facts. Company-owned sources materially outnumber independent sources for several entities, and company claims are not described here as independently verified. The supplied URLs were collected from platform responses and were not independently validated by the writer stage.

Methodology Limitations

AI answers can vary by date, wording, location, account state, model, interface, browsing configuration, and the sources retrieved. A single standardized prompt sent once to each platform captures one snapshot and does not establish that a different prompt, date, or account state would produce the same recommendations.

Platform recommendations are market intelligence, not independent customer reviews or proof of quality. Several entities in this index received fit ratings that ranged from strong to uncertain across platforms, and those disagreements are preserved rather than averaged away.

Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date for some platforms, and those dates do not independently prove freshness. The deterministic identity audit contains qualification notes that are disclosed where relevant, including unresolved domain conflicts for Profound and AI Search Engineers and brand-name collisions for Sona.

No-search model claims require explicit verification before being described as current facts. Where a platform reported a capability without retrieved evidence, that is labeled as platform-reported or company-reported.

Final Verdict

Profound is the consensus leader for AI visibility audits, named by 4 of 7 platforms at a best position of 1, and it is the clearest fit for enterprise and multi-brand audits that need broad engine coverage, citation analysis, competitor benchmarking, and SOC 2 compliance. Peec AI is the strongest alternative for agencies that need a multi-client operating layer with unlimited seats, MCP, API, and Looker Studio reporting. Astiva AI is the lowest-cost qualifying option with published pricing and a GA4 attribution tier, though its platform-coverage claims conflict across its own pages. AI Search Engineers, BeCited, Virayo AI, and Feisworld Media serve buyers who want a human-delivered diagnostic rather than software, with BeCited offering the most transparent fixed-fee structure at $2,000 one-time. optiseo should be excluded from shortlists until its dashboard launches, because the company itself states the product is an unlaunched concept. OtterlyAI and Sona round out the platform options for agencies that need published tiers or pipeline attribution respectively, but both require verification of white-label and multi-client controls before purchase.