EN
FR
ES
DE
Eight AI visibility (AEO/GEO) platforms compared on verifiable criteria — pricing, real coverage, reliability, integrations. AI Labs Audit publishes this comparison and is one of the solutions analysed; definitions, sources and verification dates are stated so every row can be checked independently.
July 2026 update
This edition replaces the old generic "AI covered" counts with a clear distinction between providers, tracked engines and individual models. Pricing has been re-verified (several plans mentioned in an older version no longer exist). Competitors' MCP integrations have been re-checked: four of the seven competitors now have a public MCP server. Added a section on AGS (multi-judge scoring) and updated the advanced GEO signals.
Our comparison methodology
Panel: the five tools already positioned on AI visibility tracking for agencies/businesses (Otterly.AI, Profound, HubSpot AEO Grader, Conductor, SE Ranking), plus two relevant European players in the agency segment (Qwairy, Peec AI — covered in detail in our French landscape on Qwairy/Hikoo), and AI Labs Audit.
- Provider, engine and model are not the same thing: a provider (OpenAI) exposes several engines/interfaces (ChatGPT web, API) and several models (GPT-5, GPT-5 mini…). The figures in the table below sometimes mix these units depending on what each vendor publicly documents — we flag this explicitly rather than artificially harmonising it.
- One-off audit vs continuous monitoring: HubSpot AEO Grader is a free one-time diagnostic, not a tracking platform over time (their separate paid product "HubSpot AEO" adds that tracking). We flag this rather than comparing it at equal depth with the others.
- Figures are self-declared by each vendor, verified on their official sites and docs on July 17, 2026, not measured by an independent third party.
- Features can depend on the subscribed plan; pricing moves fast in this market.
Editorial transparency: this comparison is published by AI Labs Audit, which is one of the solutions analysed. To limit editorial bias, criteria, definitions, sources and verification dates are stated. Features shown as "not documented" are limited to public information available at analysis time — absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Results at a glance
- Best for agencies and white-label: AI Labs Audit and Qwairy (both publicly document a white-label offer).
- Best for reliability evaluation: AI Labs Audit (the only one in the panel publishing a multi-judge scoring methodology with a confidence interval).
- Best free one-off tool: HubSpot AEO Grader (no signup, instant result, but no tracking over time).
- Best MCP integration: tied depending on need — AI Labs Audit (235 tools, full agency actions) and SE Ranking (180+ tools, but across their whole SEO suite, not just AI).
- Best for a large account already on an enterprise SEO ecosystem: Conductor (quote-based pricing, dedicated support).
- Best coverage-to-price ratio: depends on the need — AI Labs Audit and Qwairy for accessible entry pricing, Otterly.AI for minimal use at $29/mo.
The comparison, criterion by criterion
| AI Labs Audit | Otterly.AI | Profound | HubSpot AEO Grader | Conductor | SE Ranking | Qwairy | Peec AI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency white-label | Yes | Not documented | Not documented | Non | Not documented | Oui | Yes | Not documented |
| AI models/engines tracked | 300+ | 4 (+options) | 1 à 10 selon plan | 3 (audit ponctuel) | 6+ (non chiffré) | 5 | ≈40 | ≈6 |
| Continuous monitoring | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial* | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| MCP server | 235 tools | Yes | Not documented | Not documented | Yes | 180+ tools | 41 tools | Not documented |
| Hallucination detection | Yes | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented |
| Multi-judge reliability (AGS) | Yes | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EU hosting / GDPR | Yes | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Yes | Yes |
| Entry price | 0€ | 29$ | 99$ | Free* | Quote-based | 89$* | 0€ | Not public |
* HubSpot AEO Grader is a free one-time audit with no ongoing tracking; a separate "HubSpot AEO" product at $50/mo adds continuous monitoring. * SE Ranking: paid add-on to an existing subscription (or standalone "SE Visible" from $189), 180+ MCP tools covering the whole SEO suite, not just AI visibility. Badges: green = confirmed, purple = AI Labs Audit figure verified live, grey = no public information found. Sources and dates in the profiles below and at the end of the article, verified July 17, 2026.
The eight platforms, in detail
AI Labs Audit (France)
Positioning: French GEO/AEO visibility platform, white-label for agencies and consultants, with an answer-reliability evaluation system (AGS) the rest of the panel doesn't document.
Strengths: coverage of more than 300 models verified live; multi-judge scoring (5 independent AIs, geometric mean of Presence/Influence/Quality, 95% confidence interval); quantified hallucination detection; MCP server with 235 tools including real actions (launch an audit, create a client, manage credits), not just reads; 33 advanced GEO signals (SSR/Crawlability, Entity Health, Citation Readiness, external authority); EU hosting.
Limits: a young market where Qwairy offers a richer content ecosystem (Content Studio), and where enterprise players like Conductor offer dedicated support AI Labs Audit doesn't match at the same level.
Pricing (verified 2026-07-17): Découverte free (100 credits/mo + 500 signup credits) · Consultant €79/mo (1,500 credits) · Consultant+ €179/mo (5,000 credits) · Agent €349/mo (10,000 credits) · Agence+ €599/mo (20,000 credits, centralised white-label, multi-client credit pool).
Otterly.AI
Positioning: simplicity-focused AI citation tracking tool, with an MCP server exposing reports, prompts and recommendations.
Strengths: 4 engines included (ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, MS Copilot), extendable via add-ons (Claude, Gemini, Google AI Mode); accessible entry price; publicly documented MCP.
Limits: base coverage narrower than AI Labs Audit, Qwairy or SE Ranking; white-label not clearly documented (an "Agency Partner" tier exists but with no explicit mention of agency-branded reports); no documented hallucination detection.
Pricing: from $29/mo (Lite plan).
Sources: otterly.ai/pricing, otterly.ai/features. Verified 2026-07-17.
Profound
Positioning: US platform aimed at large accounts, coverage scales by plan.
Strengths: up to 10 AI platforms tracked on the Enterprise plan (Gemini, Copilot, Meta AI, Grok, DeepSeek, Claude…); strong reputation on the US enterprise segment.
Limits: entry plan (Starter, $99/mo) limited to ChatGPT only; MCP server not publicly documented; white-label not clearly documented; higher-tier pricing is quote-based.
Pricing: from $99/mo (Starter, 1 engine).
Sources: tryprofound.com/pricing. Verified 2026-07-17.
HubSpot AEO Grader
Positioning: a free one-off diagnostic, not a monitoring platform — clearly distinct from the seven other tools in this comparison, all of which are ongoing tracking solutions.
Strengths: free, no signup, instant result across 3 models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini); good entry point for a first diagnosis.
Limits: no tracking over time on the free version; for recurring monitoring, HubSpot offers a separate paid product, "HubSpot AEO" ($50/mo, 25 prompts included); no white-label.
Pricing: Grader free · HubSpot AEO $50/mo ($45/mo annual).
Sources: hubspot.com/aeo-grader, hubspot.com/products/aeo. Verified 2026-07-17.
Conductor
Positioning: long-established enterprise SEO platform, with a dedicated AI/AEO module for large accounts.
Strengths: multi-engine tracking (Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude "and more", no exact published count); MCP server publicly mentioned; enterprise-level support.
Limits: no public pricing (quote-based, third-party estimates around $30,000–150,000/yr); white-label and hallucination detection not documented.
Pricing: quote-based.
Sources: conductor.com/pricing, conductor.com (AI visibility). Verified 2026-07-17.
SE Ranking (AI Visibility Tracker)
Positioning: an AI module within an established general-purpose SEO suite, not a standalone AI-visibility product (except via their separate "SE Visible" offer).
Strengths: 5 engines tracked (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews); MCP server covering 180+ tools across the whole SE Ranking suite; white-label available via an "Agency Pack" add-on.
Limits: the AI module is a paid add-on ($89/mo) to an existing subscription, not a standalone entry price; hallucination detection not documented.
Pricing: $89/mo add-on ($71.20/mo annual) on a Core/Growth plan, or standalone "SE Visible" from $189/mo.
Sources: seranking.com/ai-visibility-tracker, seranking.com/mcp. Verified 2026-07-17.
Qwairy (France)
Positioning: a complete French GEO platform with an explicit agency white-label offer — AI Labs Audit's closest competitor in this segment. Full detail in our dedicated French landscape.
Strengths: dual collection method (web interface + API); ≈40 models across 8 documented providers; MCP server with 41 tools; Content Studio for content production.
Limits: no documented hallucination detection; model coverage clearly lower than AI Labs Audit.
Pricing: free, then from ~€79/mo.
Peec AI (Germany)
Positioning: a German AI search analytics tool backed by significant funding, adopted by large brands.
Strengths: EU hosting; traction with large European brands.
Limits: ≈6 engines tracked (extended models reserved for Enterprise); non-public pricing; white-label and MCP not documented.
Pricing: not public.
AGS: evaluating reliability, not just presence
A brand can be mentioned in an AI answer correctly, with a wrong ranking, confused with another entity, or paired with an invented URL. Counting mentions doesn't distinguish these cases. AI Labs Audit's AGS (AI Grading System) scores every answer across three dimensions — Presence, Influence, Quality — combined via geometric mean, with a pool of 5 independent AI judges (from different model families to limit self-preference) and a 95% confidence interval computed by resampling. No other tool in this panel publicly documents a comparable reliability methodology — we flag this as a verifiable differentiator, not a claim of absolute exclusivity: if a competitor publishes an equivalent method, we'll update this line.
Hallucination and fabricated-claim detection
AI Labs Audit helps identify potentially invented URLs and unverifiable claims in AI answers, based on citation-source checking and cross-model consistency. This analysis provides elements to verify — it does not replace human validation and does not guarantee absolute truth. We quantified the scale of this in our study on URLs invented by models.
Advanced GEO signals
Beyond visibility scoring, AI Labs Audit analyses 33 technical and editorial signals across four public categories: SSR / AI crawlability (server-side rendering, robots.txt, llms.txt), Entity Health (structured data, entity consistency), Citation Readiness (content structuring for AI citation) and external authority (GitHub presence, B2B reviews, LinkedIn...). Full detail and weighting on the methodology page.
Which platform should you choose in 2026?
- Independent consultant getting started: HubSpot AEO Grader for a free first diagnosis, then AI Labs Audit or Qwairy on an entry plan for ongoing tracking.
- Agency wanting large-scale white-label: AI Labs Audit or Qwairy.
- Team wanting to evaluate answer reliability, not just count mentions: AI Labs Audit (the only one publishing a multi-judge methodology with a CI).
- Large account already on an enterprise SEO ecosystem: Conductor or SE Ranking, which add AI to an existing suite.
- Technical team driving everything via MCP: AI Labs Audit, SE Ranking or Otterly.AI depending on the depth of action needed (all three expose an MCP server, with different scopes).
- Minimal budget, occasional use: Otterly.AI ($29/mo) or the free HubSpot Grader for a one-off.
No tool in this panel is best for every case. The right choice depends on the tracking depth you need, your budget, and how much weight you put on answer reliability versus coverage breadth alone.
Conclusion
For an agency or consultant looking for a French platform combining large-scale multi-model tracking, answer-reliability evaluation, hallucination detection, white-label reports and technical integrations (API + MCP), AI Labs Audit is among the most complete options in this panel. This isn't a claim of absolute exclusivity: Qwairy covers a similar need with a richer content ecosystem, and enterprise players (Conductor, SE Ranking) fit better for organisations already on their suite. The most reliable test remains trying it on your own prompts — AI Labs Audit offers a free plan with no credit card for that.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best AEO/GEO tool in 2026?
It depends on your need. For an agency wanting large-scale white-label with reliability scoring, AI Labs Audit and Qwairy are the most complete options in this panel. For a large account already equipped with an enterprise SEO ecosystem, Conductor or SE Ranking fit better. For a free first diagnosis with no commitment, HubSpot AEO Grader works.
What is the difference between a provider, an interface and a model?
A provider (e.g. OpenAI) is the company publishing the models. An interface (e.g. ChatGPT web) is an access point to those models. A model (e.g. GPT-5, GPT-5 mini) is a specific, versioned release. The same provider can expose several interfaces and several models — comparing them without distinction distorts the analysis.
How many models should you actually monitor?
There's no magic number: broad coverage reduces the risk of bias from a single model, but analysis reliability also depends on the scoring method and error detection. A 3-model audit gives a partial picture; an audit across dozens of models combined with multi-judge scoring gives a statistically more robust one.
What is the difference between API and MCP?
An API lets your code query the platform (classic automation). An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server lets an AI agent (Claude, ChatGPT...) query and operate the platform directly in natural language. As of late 2026, four tools in this panel (AI Labs Audit, Otterly.AI, Conductor, SE Ranking) plus Qwairy expose a public MCP server.
How do you detect a hallucination about a brand?
By cross-checking sources cited by the AI against verifiable sources (does the URL actually exist? does it match the claim?) and comparing consistency across several models. No tool guarantees absolute detection — it's an aid to verification, not a replacement for human review.
What budget should you plan for an AEO/GEO tool?
From €0 (AI Labs Audit or Qwairy free plans, or a one-off HubSpot audit) to tens of thousands of euros per year for a quote-based enterprise solution like Conductor. Entry plans for dedicated tools typically sit between $29 and $99/month.
How do you choose between AI Labs Audit, Qwairy, Profound and Otterly.AI?
AI Labs Audit stands out for its coverage (300+ models) and reliability scoring (AGS). Qwairy offers a broader content ecosystem. Profound targets large US accounts with coverage that scales by plan. Otterly.AI suits simple, budget-conscious use. The right choice depends on your budget, your white-label needs, and how much you value answer reliability.
Sources and verification date
All competitor data was verified on official sites and documentation on July 17, 2026: Otterly.AI, Profound, HubSpot AEO Grader, Conductor, SE Ranking. Qwairy and Peec AI: see sources in our dedicated French landscape. AI Labs Audit data: AGS methodology, MCP guide, agencies offer.
Every question asked to ChatGPT without your name in the answer is a competitor recommended instead of you — measured across 6,820 real AI answers.