BlogGuides
Best GEO tools: 5 of 7 published a price today, against 3 of 6 a month ago
Lantad requested the pricing page of the same seven GEO tools on 26 October 2026 as LantadBot, following redirects and executing no JavaScript, 32 days after reading them the first time. All seven answered HTTP 200 and five carried a numeric plan price in the bytes. Two of the seven changed verdict in that month, and one plan Lantad recorded in September has gone.
So this post does that instead of ranking. On 24 September 2026 Lantad requested the pricing page of seven tools sold for AI visibility once each as LantadBot, following redirects and executing no JavaScript, and published what came back. On 26 October 2026, 32 days later, the same seven URLs were requested again the same way. The criterion is stated before the result, as it has to be: can a buyer read what a tool costs, and what it covers, from the vendor's own page, without a sales call and without a browser. Five of the seven now can be read that way. A month ago it was three of the six that returned a page at all.
In short
- Lantad requested the pricing page of seven GEO tools on 26 October 2026 as LantadBot with redirects followed and no JavaScript executed, and all seven answered HTTP 200 while five of the seven carried a numeric plan price in the bytes returned.
- The best GEO tools cannot be ranked on one number, because the published units are not the same unit: Otterly.AI meters search prompts, AthenaHQ's page states that 1 credit equals 1 AI response, and the Ahrefs Brand Radar page states that each prompt uses 1 check per platform, location and update.
- Profound's pricing page carried no numeric plan price on 26 October 2026, and the Growth plan at 399 dollars a month that Lantad recorded from that same page on 1 September 2026 was no longer on it, replaced by a free Trial column and a custom Enterprise column.
- Otterly.AI's pricing page answered HTTP 202 with a 179 byte body carrying no words on 24 September 2026 and returned 2,100 words with a complete published ladder on 26 October 2026, listing Lite at 29 dollars a month for 15 search prompts and Premium at 489 dollars a month for 400.
- Google's own documentation, last updated 21 October 2026, states that inclusion in generative AI features on Google Search including AI Overviews and AI Mode is managed with the Search generative AI control, which is an account setting that no tool on this list can set or read from outside.
| Tool | 24 Sep price in bytes | 26 Oct HTTP | 26 Oct words | 26 Oct price in bytes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Profound | No | 200 | 1,302 | No |
| Peec AI | No | 200 | 3,465 | No |
| Otterly.AI | No page returned | 200 | 2,100 | Yes |
| PromptAlpha | Yes | 200 | 678 | Yes |
| Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit | No | 200 | 1,049 | Yes |
| Ahrefs Brand Radar | Yes | 200 | 2,205 | Yes |
| AthenaHQ | Yes | 200 | 828 | Yes |
What do the best GEO tools publish about what they cost?
Five of the seven published a figure a crawler could read on 26 October 2026. Otterly.AI published the fullest ladder of the seven: Lite at 29 dollars a month for 15 search prompts, Standard at 189 dollars a month for 100, Premium at 489 dollars a month for 400, and an Enterprise column marked Custom and described as starting from 1,000 search prompts, with 100 extra search prompts offered at 99 dollars and annual billing marked 15 percent off. Every one of those tiers named the same four engines on the page, as ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and MS Copilot, with Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini listed as add-ons, and every tier stated a daily tracking frequency.
PromptAlpha published 107 and 249 in the bytes, the same two figures Lantad read on 24 September. The Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit page published a Base plan at 99 dollars a month per domain billed annually, including tracking of 25 custom prompts with daily AI rankings on 1 domain. AthenaHQ published a Free tier including 300 credits with 25 dollars of free credit, a Starter plan at 295 dollars a month carrying 3,600 credits and stating visibility across 11 models, and a custom Enterprise column. The Ahrefs Brand Radar page published two entry points rather than a ladder: Custom Prompts described as starting at 50 dollars a month, and an AI Visibility Index described as starting at 199 dollars a month and covering 505 million or more monthly prompts.
The method matters more than the total, because the method is what makes the total checkable. Each URL was requested once from one network location, with redirects followed, a plain HTTP client and no browser, which is roughly what an AI crawler gets when it reaches a page and runs nothing. That is the same request shape the scanner's methodology describes and the same one what GPTBot sees reports on a single URL. A figure that needs JavaScript to appear is a figure an answer engine may never read, which is the part of this that is not pedantry: four of these seven products sell tracking of Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, and Google's own control documentation, last updated 21 October 2026, states that inclusion in those generative AI features is managed with the Search generative AI control, an account setting rather than anything on the page.
GET each vendor pricing page as LantadBot/1.0, no JavaScript executed
- GET www.tryprofound.com/pricing 200, 1,302 words, no price
- GET peec.ai/pricing 200, 3,465 words, no price
- GET otterly.ai/pricing/ 200, 2,100 words, price
- GET promptalpha.ai/pricing 200, 678 words, price
- GET www.semrush.com/pricing/ai/ 200, 1,049 words, price
- GET ahrefs.com/brand-radar 200, 2,205 words, price
- GET www.athenahq.ai/pricing 200, 828 words, price
The two pages that still carry no price, and what they carry instead
Profound and Peec AI published no numeric plan price on either date. That is worth stating carefully, because the absence is not a defect and it is not a trick: both sell through a demo, and a page that says Custom is being accurate about a tailored contract rather than hiding a number. What the measurement can say is narrower and still useful to a buyer: on 26 October 2026 neither page contained any currency figure, any amount followed by a currency word, or any digits attached to a monthly marker, so no plan price could be read from the bytes at all.
What they publish instead is a feature grid, and the grids are detailed. Profound published two columns, a free Trial and a custom Enterprise. The Trial column stated limited AI Marketer credits, 50 prompts run daily for 7 days, and three answer engines named as ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overviews. The Enterprise column stated tailored packages, up to 9 Answer Engines tracked, dedicated support and SSO with SOC 2 compliance. One number sits in the FAQ rather than the table: the page states that the self-serve Agency Growth plan comes with 400 credits per month per client workspace, and that additional credit thresholds require an Enterprise package.
Peec AI published four tiers and withheld every figure in money while publishing most of them in features. Starter stated 50 prompts, Pro 150 prompts and Advanced 350 prompts, each with a choice of 3 models, unlimited users, a daily tracking frequency, and 1, 2 and 5 projects respectively. The Enterprise column stated fully customizable prompt tracking, a choice from all models, daily or weekly tracking, unlimited projects, API access, single sign-on and up to 13 LLM models tracked. A page like that is readable in every respect except the one a buyer opened it for, which is the honest summary of this row. It is also a reminder that prose parity is not only about whether words reach a crawler: these words reached ours intact, and the price was simply not among them.
Profound, 2 columns
- Trial: Free, limited AI Marketer credits
- Trial: 50 prompts run daily for 7 days
- Trial engines: ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI Overviews
- Enterprise: Custom, tailored packages
- Enterprise: up to 9 Answer Engines tracked
- FAQ: Agency Growth, 400 credits per month per client workspace
Peec AI, 4 tiers
- Starter: 50 prompts, choose 3 models, 1 project
- Pro: 150 prompts, choose 3 models, 2 projects
- Advanced: 350 prompts, choose 3 models, 5 projects
- All three: unlimited users, daily tracking frequency
- Enterprise: Custom Annual, choose from all models
- Enterprise: up to 13 LLM models tracked
The two that changed verdict in 32 days
Two rows moved between the readings, in opposite directions from the same starting verdict. Otterly.AI is the larger change. On 24 September 2026 that URL answered HTTP 202 twice with bodies of 179 and 176 bytes holding no words, so no published figure could be read from it at all. On 26 October 2026 it answered HTTP 200 with 2,100 words and the complete four tier ladder quoted above. Nothing about the product changed in the measurement, because the measurement never saw the product. What changed is that the page now answers a plain request, which is the whole of the finding and is worth more to a buyer than the ladder itself.
The Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit row changed less dramatically and is the more interesting one. On 24 September that URL returned 1,054 words and no price. On 26 October it returned 1,049 words and a Base plan at 99 dollars a month per domain billed annually, with 25 custom prompts on daily AI rankings. That is the same plan and the same figure Lantad recorded from Semrush on 1 September 2026, five weeks before the reading that could not find it. So across three Lantad readings of that vendor the published price was present, then absent, then present again, on a page whose readable length barely moved. One reading of one page on one date cannot distinguish an intentional edit from a variant served to a bot, and this run did not test that, so the honest statement is about the bytes and the dates rather than about intent.
Profound moved the other way, before the window opened. On 1 September 2026 Lantad recorded a Growth plan on that page at 399 dollars a month billed yearly, carrying 3 answer engines tracked and 100 prompts tracked. On 26 October the string 399 appears nowhere in the bytes, and the self-serve tier it belonged to is not on the page: the ladder is a free Trial and a custom Enterprise. For anyone evaluating tools against Google AI Overviews coverage on a published budget, that is the single most consequential change in this run, and no roundup written in September carries it.
A prompt is not one unit, so no single number ranks these tools
The reason a roundup table misleads even when every figure in it is correct is that the column headings are not shared. Four different units appeared across these seven pages on 26 October 2026, and each vendor publishes its own conversion, which is the opposite of hiding it and is also why the arithmetic cannot be done for you.
Ahrefs meters checks. The Brand Radar page states that each prompt uses 1 check per platform, location and update, and the same page carries the worked example Lantad read in September: 5 prompts on 1 platform equals 150 checks a month, and Claude consumes 8 checks per update. AthenaHQ meters AI responses, and states the conversion in one line as 1 credit equals 1 AI response, with 3,600 credits on the Starter plan. PromptAlpha and Otterly.AI meter tracked prompts, which sounds like the same unit as Peec AI's prompts until you read Peec's Enterprise row and see model breadth sold separately from prompt count. Profound now meters credits consumed by agent runs, and its FAQ states plainly that credits are the unit of measurement for agent usage and that each run consumes credits relative to its complexity.
Multiply any two of those and the products stop being comparable: 100 prompts on 3 engines at a daily cadence is 9,000 model answers a month, and 100 prompts on 9 engines weekly is about 3,900, so the wider engine list can buy the smaller amount of work. That is the half of answer engine optimization tooling that a feature grid cannot express, and it is why the earlier taxonomy post argued that the category holds two machines rather than one list. Nothing in this run contradicts that. What this run adds is that even inside the single machine that tracks answers, the meter is vendor specific, so the only defensible comparison is the one you do yourself against your own prompt list and cadence.
| Tool | Unit metered | Conversion published on the page |
|---|---|---|
| Ahrefs Brand Radar | Checks | Each prompt uses 1 check per platform, location and update; 5 prompts on 1 platform equals 150 checks a month; Claude consumes 8 checks per update |
| AthenaHQ | Credits | 1 credit equals 1 AI response; Starter carries 3,600 credits; Free carries 300 |
| Profound | Credits | Credits are the unit of measurement for agent usage; Agency Growth comes with 400 credits per month per client workspace |
| Otterly.AI | Search prompts | 15, 100 and 400 search prompts by tier; 100 extra at 99 dollars; Enterprise from 1,000 |
| Peec AI | Prompts plus models | 50, 150 and 350 prompts, each with a choice of 3 models; Enterprise up to 13 LLM models tracked |
| PromptAlpha | Prompts tracked | Two plan figures published, 107 and 249 dollars a month |
| Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit | Custom prompts | 25 custom prompts with daily AI rankings, on 1 domain, per domain billed annually |
Where Lantad belongs on this list, and where it does not
Lantad is on the read side of the split, not the answer tracking side, and its own configuration says so more plainly than any marketing page could. PLAN_LIMITS in core/src/config.ts sets promptsPerRun to 5 on the free row, 10 on Starter, 15 on Pro and 25 on Business. PLAN_PRICING in the same file sets Starter at 59, Pro at 199 and Business at 399 US dollars a month. Those are settings rather than findings: somebody chose each of them, and no measurement anywhere in this repository says 25 prompts is the right panel size for anything.
Read against the published ladders above, the comparison is not close, and it points away from us. For a buyer who needs a large tracked prompt panel across many named engines on a daily cadence, Otterly.AI's published Premium tier at 400 search prompts, or AthenaHQ's Starter at 3,600 credits across 11 stated models, is a better answer than anything in Lantad's configuration, which tops out at 25 prompts per run on its most expensive row. Those are different units and should not be set equal, but no reading of them puts Lantad ahead on panel size, and a list in which the author wins the row the author chose is not worth reading.
One more fact belongs here, because leaving it out would make the pricing page above look like something it is not. PRE_REVENUE in core/src/config.ts is currently true, and isPlanOnSale returns false for every plan while it holds, so the ladder quoted in this section is published and not yet on sale. Where Lantad does have something the answer trackers in this list do not sell is the cause side: whether a crawler can fetch and parse the page at all, which is what the crawlability study measures across 1,419 hostnames. Otterly.AI's own page lists a Crawlability Audit and 1,000 GEO Audits per month on its Lite tier, so that ground is not ours alone either, and saying otherwise would be the kind of claim this post exists to test.
- Free, promptsPerRun 5 PLAN_LIMITS free row. No price.
- Starter, promptsPerRun 10 PLAN_PRICING sets 59 US dollars a month.
- Pro, promptsPerRun 15 PLAN_PRICING sets 199 US dollars a month.
- Business, promptsPerRun 25 PLAN_PRICING sets 399 US dollars a month, the top paid row.
- Any plan on sale today PRE_REVENUE is true, so isPlanOnSale returns false for every plan.
How to check a GEO tools roundup, including this one
Every figure in this post is a reading of one page on one date, and all of them will rot. The two Lantad readings 32 days apart are the evidence for that rather than a boast about freshness: two of seven rows changed verdict in a month, and one named plan disappeared from a vendor's page between two readings five weeks apart. A roundup published in September and still ranking in October is not stale at the margin, it is wrong about Profound's self-serve tier and wrong about whether Otterly.AI's page answers at all.
The check costs about a minute per vendor and needs no account. Open the vendor's own pricing page, not a review of it, and read the figure there. If the page shows nothing until scripts run, note that, because it tells you what an answer engine reading that page gets. Then ask the question the price cannot answer: what is one unit of the thing being sold, how many of them does your prompt list and cadence consume, and which engines are named rather than implied. The same discipline applies on the access side, where the robots.txt tester resolves a token against a real file rather than a summary of it, and where Cloudflare's AI Crawl Control documentation, last updated 14 August 2026, states the product is available on all plans and lets an owner see which AI services are crawling and set allow or block rules per crawler.
Limits of this run, stated so nobody takes it for more than it is. Seven URLs is not the category, and the seven were chosen because Lantad had already read them, which makes them a repeat measurement and not a sample. One request per page from one network location on one date cannot separate an edit from a variant served to a bot or an error that would clear on a retry. No product was used, no trial was opened, no account was created, and nothing here measures whether any of these tools reports accurately. Word counts are extracted text from returned bytes, so a few words of difference between runs is noise in the extraction and not an edit to the page. And none of this says which tool is best for you, because the only ranking this measurement supports is of how readable each vendor's own page was on 26 October 2026.
Flow: Vendor's own pricing page to Fetch with no JavaScript; Fetch with no JavaScript to Price in the bytes?; Price in the bytes? (found) to Record figure and date; Price in the bytes? (none) to Record absent and date; Record figure and date to Find the published unit; Record absent and date to Find the published unit; Find the published unit to Multiply by your own cadence.
Lantad
Published .
Every roundup of the best generative engine optimization tools is a table of prices and feature ticks, and every one of them is dated the day it was written. That is not a complaint about the genre. It is the measurable property of the genre, and it is the one thing nobody writing a roundup ever tests, because testing it means reading the same pages twice and admitting what moved.
Common questions
What are the best GEO tools?
There is no single answer, because the category holds two different machines and they answer different questions. Answer trackers send a fixed prompt list to a set of models on a schedule and count what the answers name and cite. Read-side scanners fetch your pages the way an AI crawler does and report whether the text, links and markup survive the fetch. On the narrower question this post can measure, which is whether a buyer can read what a tool costs from the vendor's own page without a browser, five of seven pages could be read that way on 26 October 2026: Otterly.AI, PromptAlpha, the Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit, Ahrefs Brand Radar and AthenaHQ. Profound and Peec AI published no numeric plan price.
How much do GEO tools cost?
Where it was published on 26 October 2026, the monthly figures read from vendor pages ran from 29 dollars to 489 dollars: Otterly.AI at 29, 189 and 489 dollars a month for 15, 100 and 400 search prompts, the Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit Base plan at 99 dollars a month per domain billed annually with 25 custom prompts, PromptAlpha at 107 and 249 dollars a month, AthenaHQ Starter at 295 dollars a month with 3,600 credits, and Ahrefs Brand Radar described as starting at 50 dollars a month for Custom Prompts and 199 for its AI Visibility Index. Profound and Peec AI published no figure. Open the vendor's page rather than trusting any roundup including this one.
Why do some AI visibility vendors not publish a price?
Usually because the contract is negotiated rather than listed, which a page saying Custom is being accurate about. Profound published a free Trial column and a custom Enterprise column on 26 October 2026, and Peec AI published four tiers with prompt counts and model breadth but no money figure. Neither absence is evidence of anything except that the number is not on the page, and both pages published detailed feature grids that are worth reading. What it does mean for a buyer is that the comparison has to start with a sales conversation, which is a real cost in time even when the eventual price is competitive.
How quickly do GEO tool prices change?
Fast enough that a roundup is unreliable within weeks. Lantad read the same seven pricing pages on 24 September 2026 and again on 26 October 2026, and two of the seven changed verdict: Otterly.AI went from returning no readable page at all to publishing a full four tier ladder, and the Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit page went from no readable price to a Base plan at 99 dollars a month. Over a slightly longer window, the Growth plan at 399 dollars a month that Lantad recorded from Profound's page on 1 September 2026 was no longer on that page on 26 October 2026.
See what AI can read on your site
Run a free scan and get a graded report of exactly what AI crawlers can and cannot read, with ranked fixes.
Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)
Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is the practice of structuring and publishing content so that generative AI engines can fetch it, read it in full, and cite it when they answer a question.
AI visibility
AI visibility is whether AI systems can access, read, and faithfully represent your web pages, the prerequisite for being cited in an AI answer.
Answer Engine Optimization (AEO)
Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) is the practice of making a page readable, allowed, and structured enough that AI answer engines can use it as a source when they compose an answer.
Lantad vs Otterly.AI
Otterly.AI tracks what AI engines already say about your brand; Lantad measures and fixes whether AI crawlers can read your site in the first place.
Lantad vs Semrush
Semrush's AI Visibility Toolkit reports how often AI answers mention your brand; Lantad measures whether an AI crawler could read the page those answers would have to cite, and names the fix when it could not.
Lantad vs Ahrefs
Ahrefs Brand Radar tracks brand mentions and citations across AI platforms at very large scale; Lantad measures whether an AI crawler could read the page those citations would point at, and names the fix when it could not.
