Tool Comparison: 6 Platforms
| Tool | ChatGPT | Claude | Perplexity | Gemini | Scoring Methodology | Data Freshness | Hallucination Detection | Pricing Model | JSON-LD Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AISearchStackHub | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Multi-signal: mention rate, position weight, source authority, citation context, hallucination flag. 0–100 AIS Index with engine breakdown. | Weekly (Starter) / Daily (Growth+) | ✓ Explicit flag | $99/mo Starter (1 brand, weekly) · $299/mo Growth (3 brands, daily) · Scale $899/mo · Enterprise $2,499/mo · Free scan available | ✓ |
| Peec AI | ✓ | — | ✓ | — | Query presence + position scoring. Clean dashboard with competitor tracking. Focus on English-language brand queries. | Weekly / Monthly | Partial | $79–$299/mo (per brand, per month). Free limited tier available. | — |
| AthenaHQ | ✓ | — | ✓ | — | Mention frequency + sentiment analysis. Strong on brand monitoring and trend tracking. Less transparent on scoring weights. | Weekly | ✓ Structured | $149–$499/mo. Contact sales for multi-brand pricing. | — |
| Otterly.AI | ✓ | — | — | — | Google AI Overviews + ChatGPT focus. Score based on SERP visibility and AI Overview presence. Strong integration with Search Console. | Daily | — | $49–$199/mo. Pay-per-query tiers also available. | — |
| Scrunch | ✓ | — | — | — | Primarily ChatGPT mention tracking with some competitive benchmarking. Lighter methodology than dedicated AEO tools. | Weekly | — | $99–$349/mo. Bundled with Scrunch's PR/media monitoring suite. | — |
| Aiclicks | ✓ | — | ✓ | — | Keyword-based mention tracking with monthly snapshot reports. Focuses on brand visibility scores rather than citation quality. | Monthly | Basic | $49–$199/mo. Lower entry point than most competitors. | — |
Coverage data reflects publicly available feature information as of June 2026. Engine coverage changes frequently — confirm directly with each vendor before purchase. AISearchStackHub's full 4-engine coverage is verified via the platform. "✓" indicates active monitoring; "—" indicates not currently offered.
Tool Spotlights
AISearchStackHub — Full-Stack AEO Platform
The broadest engine coverage in this comparison: ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini — all scanned with the same methodology. The scoring model is the most granular: it weights mention position, source authority, citation context, and hallucination flags separately before aggregating to a 0–100 AIS Index. AISearchStackHub also offers the free scan as a frictionless entry point, which makes it easier to evaluate before committing. The continuous intelligence tiers (Marketer $149–Enterprise $699/mo) add real-time hallucination alerting, daily briefings, and competitive tracking. The primary limitation: its free tier is scan-only (no ongoing monitoring), and the Growth tier ($299/mo) is the minimum for daily scanning.
Peec AI — ChatGPT Specialist
Peec AI has built a solid reputation in the AEO space for ChatGPT monitoring specifically. Its dashboard is clean and its competitor tracking features are well-designed for brands watching rivals in real time. The scoring is straightforward (mention + position), which makes it easy to explain to stakeholders. Limitations: no Claude or Gemini coverage means you're only getting a partial picture of AI brand visibility. The lack of JSON-LD schema support is also a gap for brands that want to cross-reference visibility with their own structured data. Worth evaluating if your primary concern is ChatGPT specifically and you want a dedicated tool rather than a full-stack platform.
AthenaHQ — Brand Monitoring With Sentiment
AthenaHQ differentiates with sentiment analysis layered into its mention tracking — it doesn't just tell you if you're cited, it tells you whether the citation is positive, neutral, or critical. This is genuinely useful for reputation management alongside AEO. The hallucination detection is a strong feature for brands that have had accuracy issues in LLM responses. The trade-off: no Claude or Gemini coverage limits its use as a complete AI visibility tracker. Pricing is at the higher end of the mid-market. Best suited for brands that need sentiment monitoring alongside citation tracking and are primarily focused on ChatGPT and Perplexity.
Otterly.AI — Google AI Overviews Focus
Otterly.AI sits at the intersection of traditional SEO and AEO — it monitors Google AI Overviews alongside ChatGPT citations, which is useful for brands whose SEO team and AEO team are the same people. The Search Console integration is a real practical benefit: if you're already in Google Search Console, adding Otterly gives you AI Overview data in the same workflow. The limitations are significant: no Claude or Perplexity monitoring, no hallucination detection, and the scoring methodology is less transparent than dedicated AEO tools. If your brand's AI visibility concerns are primarily about Google — worth evaluating. For a comprehensive AI visibility strategy, insufficient.
Scrunch — PR Suite Integration
Scrunch positions AI visibility as part of a broader media monitoring suite that includes PR, social, and earned media tracking. If you're already using Scrunch for media relations, adding the AI monitoring module is a natural extension. The AI monitoring specifically is lighter than dedicated AEO tools: it's more "are we mentioned?" than "how authoritative is the citation?" No hallucination detection, no JSON-LD support, and the weekly data cadence means it's not suitable for brands that need real-time monitoring. Best for: PR teams that want AI visibility data without deploying a separate AEO tool, and that are primarily concerned with ChatGPT.
Aiclicks — Low-Friction Entry Point
Aiclicks has the lowest entry price in this comparison, which makes it attractive for SMBs and early-stage brands evaluating AI visibility for the first time. The monthly snapshot cadence is adequate for tracking broad trends but won't catch fast-moving visibility changes. The scoring methodology is basic — mention frequency without deep citation quality analysis. No hallucination detection beyond basic flagging. No Claude or Gemini coverage. Best suited for: small teams with limited budget who want an initial read on ChatGPT and Perplexity visibility before investing in a more comprehensive platform.
How to Choose the Right Tool
No single tool wins on every dimension. The right choice depends on your primary concern, budget, and team structure. Here's a decision guide:
AISearchStackHub is currently the only tool in this comparison with verified Claude and Gemini monitoring. No other tool on this list covers all four engines with equivalent rigor.
AthenaHQ and AISearchStackHub are the two tools with explicit hallucination detection. AthenaHQ adds sentiment analysis; AISearchStackHub adds broader engine coverage. If brand safety is the primary concern, evaluate both.
Aiclicks and Otterly.AI have the lowest entry points. For ChatGPT-only coverage, Aiclicks at $49/mo is the cheapest verified option. For Google AI Overviews monitoring, Otterly.AI at $49/mo is worth considering — though it doesn't cover LLMs.
If you're on Scrunch for PR, adding their AI module is lower-friction than deploying a standalone AEO tool. Accept the trade-off in methodology depth for workflow consolidation.
Start with AISearchStackHub's free scan — it runs across all 4 engines and gives you a baseline score without requiring a subscription. Use that score to build a shortlist and run paid trials on 1–2 tools before committing annual budget.
Run a Full AIS Index Scan
Free scan across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini. See your 0–100 score, top citation gaps, and recommended fixes. No account required.
Run Free Scan →Frequently Asked Questions
Which AI visibility tracking tool has the best engine coverage?
Coverage varies significantly. AISearchStackHub covers all four major engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini) as of Q2 2026. Peec AI and AthenaHQ focus on ChatGPT and Perplexity primarily. Otterly.AI and Scrunch have focused on Google-centric AI Overviews plus ChatGPT. Aiclicks covers ChatGPT and Perplexity. No tool on this list covers all four engines with equal rigor — verify current coverage directly with each vendor before purchasing.
Do any AI visibility tools detect LLM hallucinations about my brand?
AISearchStackHub and AthenaHQ explicitly flag hallucination detection — tracking when LLMs generate inaccurate claims about a brand. Peec AI and Aiclicks cover citation accuracy at a surface level. Otterly.AI and Scrunch do not prominently advertise hallucination detection as a feature. Hallucination monitoring is still an emerging capability across the category — most tools acknowledge it but few have structured alerting around it.
What's a reasonable price for AI visibility tracking?
Most tools price on a per-brand, per-month basis. Entry points range from $49–$99/month for single-brand monitoring with weekly scans. Enterprise tiers with daily scans, multiple brands, and API access run $300–$2,500/month. AISearchStackHub's Starter plan at $99/month and Growth at $299/month sit in the mid-range. Per-seat pricing is less common than domain-based pricing. Always confirm whether 'unlimited scans' means daily or weekly cadence.
What does 'scoring methodology' mean in practice?
Scoring methodology describes how a tool converts raw scan data into a visibility score (typically 0–100). Differences matter: some tools score based on query presence alone (did your brand appear?), others weight position (are you first or third?), and the most rigorous models factor in source authority, citation context, and hallucination signals. Ask any tool you're evaluating to explain exactly which signals feed into their score and how each is weighted. Transparency here is a proxy for overall methodology rigor.
Is there a free option for AI visibility tracking?
AISearchStackHub offers a free scan that scores your brand across all 4 major AI engines with a 0–100 AIS Index, top citation gaps, and recommended fixes. Peec AI and AthenaHQ offer limited free tiers with scan caps. Most other tools in the category require paid subscriptions to access meaningful scan data. The free tier question matters less for initial discovery and more for ongoing monitoring — the recurring cost is where tools diverge most.