Neutral mentions of Peec AI

For a small marketing team, I’d avoid the enterprise AEO/GEO platforms unless you have a large SEO budget. The best fit is usually a lightweight AI visibility tracker that can answer:

• “How often does our brand appear in ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, etc.?”
• “Which competitors are winning?”
• “Which prompts are we missing?”
• “Why are they being cited instead of us?” Spawned Built In

Here are the strongest options:

My shortlist for a small marketing team

Best overall: Otterly.ai

Good if your goal is: “Give me a weekly dashboard showing whether we’re gaining or losing AI visibility.”

Best dedicated AI share-of-voice tool: Peec AI

Good if AI search is becoming a major acquisition channel and you want prompt-level tracking. Semrush

Best if you already pay for SEO software: Semrush

Good if you want one system covering:

• traditional SEO
• competitor research
• AI visibility
• content opportunities Semrush

Best budget approach

For many small teams, I’d start with:

1. Pick 50–200 buyer-intent prompts.
2. Track them weekly across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity.
3. Measure: - brand mention rate
4. competitor mention rate
5. average position in answers
6. citations/source domains
7. sentiment/accuracy

A tool that only counts mentions is less valuable than one that shows which prompts you lose and what sources competitors are getting cited from. Spawned visibility.so

If you tell me your industry (B2B SaaS, ecommerce, local business, etc.), monthly budget, and whether you already use Semrush/Ahrefs/HubSpot, I can narrow this to 2–3 choices.

Yes. This is a rapidly emerging category often called LLM optimization (LLMO), Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), or AI visibility. The tools vary a lot in maturity, but several are specifically designed to measure and improve how often your content is cited or referenced by conversational AI systems.

Here's how the landscape breaks down:

What these tools actually do

Unlike traditional SEO tools that optimize for rankings, these platforms typically analyze things like:

• Whether ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, or Copilot mention your brand
• Which pages are being cited
• Which competitors are cited instead
• What prompts trigger mentions
• Missing topical coverage
• Opportunities to make content more "citation-worthy"

Some can even simulate hundreds or thousands of prompts and measure how frequently your content appears.

What actually increases citations

The tools help identify gaps, but the biggest drivers of AI citations are generally:

• Comprehensive, fact-rich pages rather than thin marketing copy
• Original data, research, benchmarks, and statistics
• Clear structure with descriptive headings
• Explicit definitions and explanations
• Strong topical authority (multiple interconnected pages)
• Accurate metadata and schema markup
• Pages that other authoritative sites reference
• Frequently updated content

Conversational AIs increasingly favor content that is authoritative, well-organized, and easy to verify rather than simply optimized for keywords.

If you're on a budget

You don't necessarily need a dedicated GEO platform. A practical workflow is:

1. Use an SEO tool (Ahrefs or Semrush) to identify high-authority topics.
2. Test important prompts directly across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Claude.
3. Track whether your content is cited or paraphrased.
4. Improve pages by adding original insights, data, FAQs, and clearer structure.
5. Repeat the testing periodically.

Enterprise vs. SMB

• Enterprise: Profound AI and Scrunch AI currently have some of the most advanced monitoring capabilities for AI citations.
• Growing businesses: Goodie AI and Peec AI focus more directly on AI visibility without requiring a large SEO stack.
• Existing SEO users: Semrush and Ahrefs are steadily adding AI search visibility features, making them good choices if you're already using those platforms.

This space is evolving very quickly, so today's "AI SEO" tools are becoming more like analytics platforms that measure share of voice in conversational AI, rather than traditional search rankings.

Yes. This is a rapidly emerging category often called LLM optimization (LLMO), Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), or AI visibility. The tools vary a lot in maturity, but several are specifically designed to measure and improve how often your content is cited or referenced by conversational AI systems.

Here's how the landscape breaks down:

What these tools actually do

Unlike traditional SEO tools that optimize for rankings, these platforms typically analyze things like:

• Whether ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, or Copilot mention your brand
• Which pages are being cited
• Which competitors are cited instead
• What prompts trigger mentions
• Missing topical coverage
• Opportunities to make content more "citation-worthy"

Some can even simulate hundreds or thousands of prompts and measure how frequently your content appears.

What actually increases citations

The tools help identify gaps, but the biggest drivers of AI citations are generally:

• Comprehensive, fact-rich pages rather than thin marketing copy
• Original data, research, benchmarks, and statistics
• Clear structure with descriptive headings
• Explicit definitions and explanations
• Strong topical authority (multiple interconnected pages)
• Accurate metadata and schema markup
• Pages that other authoritative sites reference
• Frequently updated content

Conversational AIs increasingly favor content that is authoritative, well-organized, and easy to verify rather than simply optimized for keywords.

If you're on a budget

You don't necessarily need a dedicated GEO platform. A practical workflow is:

1. Use an SEO tool (Ahrefs or Semrush) to identify high-authority topics.
2. Test important prompts directly across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Claude.
3. Track whether your content is cited or paraphrased.
4. Improve pages by adding original insights, data, FAQs, and clearer structure.
5. Repeat the testing periodically.

Enterprise vs. SMB

• Enterprise: Profound AI and Scrunch AI currently have some of the most advanced monitoring capabilities for AI citations.
• Growing businesses: Goodie AI and Peec AI focus more directly on AI visibility without requiring a large SEO stack.
• Existing SEO users: Semrush and Ahrefs are steadily adding AI search visibility features, making them good choices if you're already using those platforms.

This space is evolving very quickly, so today's "AI SEO" tools are becoming more like analytics platforms that measure share of voice in conversational AI, rather than traditional search rankings.

Yes. The category you’re looking for is usually called GEO (Generative Engine Optimization), AEO (Answer Engine Optimization), or AI search visibility.

There are now tools that go beyond “does my brand get mentioned?” and actually audit/score individual pages for their likelihood of being retrieved, cited, and used in AI-generated answers. The market is still pretty immature, though—there isn't yet a universally accepted “AI citation score” equivalent to an SEO Domain Rating. Shadow arXiv

Tools worth looking at

• AI Search Visibility — probably closest to what you described. It evaluates pages across dimensions such as crawlability, content depth, snippet/extractability, structured data, trust signals, and attribution risk, then produces an overall score. AISearchVisibility
• BlueJar — focuses more on actual AI visibility and citation tracking across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Copilot, then maps which sources are getting cited and what you need to change. BlueJar
• Profound / Peec AI / Otterly / Scrunch — stronger if your goal is monitoring actual AI answers at scale: prompts → mentions/citations → competitors → share of voice. They tend to be less about a single page's intrinsic “citation probability” score. A recent comparison of the category puts these among the main platforms. Elmo Kitbase
• AuditAE — takes a more explicit audit approach, looking at technical foundations, on-page structure, topical authority, off-page signals, and distribution. AuditAE

The important distinction

There are really two different scores you could be asking for:

1. “How AI-ready is this page?”

URL → score 0–100 → recommendations

Things like:

• Can AI crawlers access it?
• Is the answer explicit and extractable?
• Does it directly answer the query?
• Are facts supported?
• Is there original data/evidence?
• Is the author/entity trustworthy?
• Is the page structured clearly?
• Is it fresh?
• Does schema help?
• Can an LLM easily quote a passage?

Tools like AI Search Visibility are closest to this.

2. “How likely is this page to actually be cited?”

URL + target queries → simulate/measure AI engines → citation probability

This is considerably more valuable, but harder. You'd want to test the page against actual prompts in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Gemini, etc., and compare it against the pages that those engines actually cite.

That distinction matters because research is finding that citation isn't simply a page-quality score. Topical relevance, retrieval position, freshness, completeness, and the competitive set all affect whether a source gets cited. arXiv arXiv

If you're thinking about building this

I actually think there's an interesting product gap here.

A genuinely useful “AI Citation Score” could look something like:

Page: /best-project-management-software
AI Citation Score: 72/100

ChatGPT: 81
Perplexity: 69
Google AI: 74
Gemini: 63

Why you score well

• Strong topical match
• Clear definitions
• Good comparison table
• Recent data
• Author credentials

Why you lose citations

• Competitor X has more first-party data
• Your answer to “pricing” is buried
• Missing explicit methodology
• Two important claims lack supporting sources

Estimated citation likelihood: 18%
Top competing sources: X, Y, Z
Highest-impact changes: 3

That's much more actionable than a generic “GEO score.”

And there's some empirical support for this direction: a 2026 study found that high-influence cited pages tended to be longer, more structured, semantically aligned, and richer in extractable evidence, while another controlled study found topical relevance and retrieval position to be particularly important. arXiv arXiv

If you tell me what kind of pages you have (SaaS, ecommerce, publisher, local, etc.), I can also give you a shortlist of the 3–5 tools I'd actually test, specifically for scoring your existing pages rather than merely tracking brand mentions.

If your goal is specifically “create content outlines that increase the odds of being quoted/cited by ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, etc.”, I’d use a GEO/AEO-oriented workflow rather than a conventional SEO outline generator.

My picks

I'd start with Surfer

Surfer's current Content Editor explicitly combines outline generation, competitor analysis, entities/facts, and AI-search optimization. Its newer workflow includes an AI Search Score, and its “Coverage Booster” is designed to add missing facts that can improve LLM citations. docs.surferseo.comgenerative.qadocs.surferseo.com

That makes it substantially more relevant to your objective than something that simply says “here are the headings ranking pages use.”

Surfer Content Editor documentation

But there's an important distinction

Being rank-optimized isn't the same as being quote-optimized.

For conversational-model citations, I'd want an outline to force the writer to produce:

• A direct answer near the top — don't make the model extract your conclusion from 1,500 words.
• Self-contained claims — each important assertion should make sense when quoted out of context.
• Definitions of entities/concepts — particularly in the first ~200 words.
• Specific numbers, dates, comparisons, and criteria rather than vague marketing language.
• Original data or analysis where possible.
• Tables/comparison frameworks for questions involving alternatives.
• FAQ-style questions corresponding to actual conversational queries.
• Clear source attribution for factual claims.
• Author/expert credentials where expertise matters.
• Freshness signals for topics that change rapidly.

Recent GEO research suggests that structural factors like clear entity definitions, comparison tables, original data, FAQ structure, and strong authorship can correlate with higher citation rates—but these effects vary substantially by model and query type. generative.qa

And the landscape is moving quickly: for example, Axios recently reported a substantial change in Reddit's share of ChatGPT citations, illustrating why you shouldn't build your strategy around a single supposed “GEO hack.” www.axios.com

The workflow I'd actually use

1. Surfer → generate the initial SEO/GEO outline

2. Manually convert the outline into “citation units”

For every major section, ask:

If an LLM wanted to quote exactly 2–3 sentences from this section as its answer, have we written those sentences?

For example, instead of:

Benefits of X

I'd structure the brief more like:

What are the benefits of X?

Answer in 40–60 words: Give the direct answer, including the 2–3 most important benefits.
Evidence: Include quantitative evidence where available.
Comparison: Explain when X is preferable to Y.
Caveat: Identify the most important limitation.

That creates extractable, self-contained passages, rather than merely an SEO-friendly article.

3. Run the finished content through a GEO visibility tracker

That's the step most “AI outline generators” don't solve. You need to actually ask the target models representative questions and track:

• Are you mentioned?
• Are you cited?
• Which page gets cited?
• Which competitor gets cited instead?
• Which passage appears to have been used?
• What questions produce no citation?

Surfer now has AI visibility tracking alongside its content workflow, while dedicated GEO platforms specialize more heavily in this measurement layer. docs.surferseo.com

Bottom line:
If you want one piece of software, I'd pick Surfer. If you're building a serious content operation, I'd use Surfer/Clearscope for the outline + a dedicated GEO visibility tracker for feedback.

If you tell me what kind of content you're producing (B2B SaaS, ecommerce, affiliate, publisher, professional services, etc.), I can also tell you exactly what I would put into the outline template to maximize LLM quotability.

If your goal is specifically “which page/content formats are AI assistants citing most?”, I’d recommend HubSpot’s AEO/AI Visibility tool.

Its particularly relevant feature is “Citations by content type.” It breaks cited sources into formats such as:

• Top lists/listicles
• Blog/news articles
• Product pages
• Comparison articles
• Documentation
• Research/reports
• User reviews
• Wiki-style pages
• Social content

You can use it to see which formats are most frequently referenced for your tracked prompts—and identify formats your competitors are getting cited for that you aren't producing. knowledge.hubspot.com

HubSpot AEO / AI Visibility documentation

If you want deeper competitive intelligence

Profound is the one I'd investigate for an enterprise-grade setup. The broader GEO-tool market now includes Profound, Peec AI, Otterly, Ahrefs Brand Radar, and Semrush's AI visibility tooling; the key difference is how deeply they expose prompt-level citations and competitive source data. marketerhire.com

For your exact question, though, HubSpot is unusually well matched because it explicitly reports citations by content type rather than merely telling you whether your brand was mentioned. knowledge.hubspot.com

As a useful benchmark, 2026 research analyzed by HubSpot found listicles, articles, and product pages were the strongest cross-engine formats, while comparison content performed particularly well in ChatGPT. knowledge.hubspot.comblog.hubspot.com

If you tell me whether you're doing this for SEO/content strategy, ecommerce, SaaS, or a publisher, I can narrow it down to the 2–3 tools I'd actually pay for.