# Lantad compared with PromptAlpha

> PromptAlpha bundles AI answer tracking with done-for-you AEO articles; Lantad measures whether AI can read your pages, tracks what 8 answer engines say, and deliberately does not sell content production.

- Canonical page: https://lantad.co/vs/promptalpha
- This file: https://lantad.co/vs/promptalpha.md

## Key facts

- **Compared with:** PromptAlpha
- **What they do:** PromptAlpha is an AEO platform sold in tiers that combine prompt tracking with content production. Its published Starter tier at 107 USD a month covers 50 tracked prompts across 3 AI engines; Growth at 249 covers 150 prompts across 5 engines and adds sentiment and citation tracking, which its ladder reserves for Growth and up. Alongside the tracking, its tiers include done-for-you AEO article production, published as 6 to 18 articles a month depending on tier, which makes content volume a core part of what the subscription buys. Published tier names and figures shift over time, so confirm current pricing with PromptAlpha directly.
- **What Lantad does:** Lantad is an AI-visibility scanner built around machine readability: it fetches a page the way an AI crawler does (raw HTML, no JavaScript), fetches it again in a real browser, diffs the two, and scores whether crawlers can reach and read the content, from 0 to 100. On top of that layer, its paid plans track prompts weekly: 100 prompts a week on Starter (59 USD a month, 5 engines), 150 on Pro (199 USD, 8 engines), and 250 on Business (399 USD, 8 engines, sampled twice weekly), where an engine is a named API or open-weight model, never a scraped consumer app. The always-free open-weight chain answers every tracked prompt; the metered engines answer the top 10 prompts of each page run, the same cap the run report discloses, so the engine count is not a prompts-times-engines multiplier. Sentiment (model-graded, with a labelled word-list fallback) and citation analytics ship on every paid tier rather than arriving mid-ladder. What Lantad deliberately does not sell is article production: the product measures and repairs what machines can read and reports what engines do with it, and producing the content it then grades would put the deliverable and the measurement in the same hands. The numbers on this page are read from the same configuration the scheduler enforces, not retyped.
- **Choose them when:** Choose PromptAlpha when you want tracking and content production from one vendor: if your plan is to publish AEO articles at volume and watch the needle move inside the same subscription, its bundle is built for exactly that, and nothing in Lantad will write articles for you. Its Starter tier also undercuts nothing here on scope confusion: what it sells is clearly labelled prompt-and-engine counts, which makes tier comparison easy.
- **Choose Lantad when:** Choose Lantad when you want the measurement layer to stand apart from the content, or when the readability underneath is the question: whether crawlers can parse the pages the answers should cite. Lantad's paid tiers track more prompts across more engines per dollar at every published rung (100 weekly across 5 engines at 59 USD against their published 50 tracked prompts across 3 engines at 107 USD), include sentiment and citations from the first paid tier, and sit on the readability layer that decides whether any of it can improve. Teams that already produce their own content get everything PromptAlpha's tracking half does, plus the layer underneath it.

## Lantad against PromptAlpha, dimension by dimension

| Dimension | PromptAlpha | Lantad |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Tracked prompts per tier | Published: 50 prompts on Starter (107 USD), 150 on Growth (249 USD) | 100 weekly on Starter (59 USD), 150 on Pro (199 USD), 250 on Business (399 USD), each across ten tracked pages |
| Engines per tier | 3 engines on Starter, 5 on Growth | 5 on Starter and 8 on Pro and Business: 5 metered engines plus an always-on open-weight chain, a grounded engine, and the AI Overviews SERP capture on Pro and Business |
| Sentiment and citations | Growth tier and up | Every paid tier: sentiment is model-graded with a labelled word-list fallback, and citation shares are never shown as zero when nothing was measured |
| Content production | Included: 6 to 18 AEO articles a month by tier | Deliberately not sold: grading content we also wrote would make the measurement unauditable |
| Readability layer underneath | Not the focus | The core product: raw-vs-rendered diff, per-crawler robots access, structure and schema, scored 0 to 100, with fix workflows |
| Cadence and history | Tracking by subscription tier | Weekly sampling (twice weekly on Business) into a per-day metric history with trend charts, exports, and a brand-metrics API |

## Which to choose

| Choose | When |
| --- | --- |
| PromptAlpha | Choose PromptAlpha when you want tracking and content production from one vendor: if your plan is to publish AEO articles at volume and watch the needle move inside the same subscription, its bundle is built for exactly that, and nothing in Lantad will write articles for you. Its Starter tier also undercuts nothing here on scope confusion: what it sells is clearly labelled prompt-and-engine counts, which makes tier comparison easy. |
| Lantad | Choose Lantad when you want the measurement layer to stand apart from the content, or when the readability underneath is the question: whether crawlers can parse the pages the answers should cite. Lantad's paid tiers track more prompts across more engines per dollar at every published rung (100 weekly across 5 engines at 59 USD against their published 50 tracked prompts across 3 engines at 107 USD), include sentiment and citations from the first paid tier, and sit on the readability layer that decides whether any of it can improve. Teams that already produce their own content get everything PromptAlpha's tracking half does, plus the layer underneath it. |

## The short version

PromptAlpha and Lantad overlap more than most pairs on these pages: both track how AI engines answer questions where your brand could appear, and both sell that tracking by monthly tier. The difference is what sits around the tracking. PromptAlpha packages it with AEO article production, selling content volume as the lever. Lantad packages it with the machine-readability layer underneath: whether AI crawlers can reach and parse your pages at all, measured and repaired, with the answer tracking as evidence of what engines then do.

This page compares the two honestly, tier against tier, including the places where PromptAlpha's packaging is the better fit.

## Questions and answers

**Is Lantad a PromptAlpha alternative?**

For the tracking half, yes: both track prompts across AI engines by paid tier, and Lantad's tiers carry larger quotas (100 to 250 prompts weekly) across up to 8 engines with sentiment and citations on every paid plan. For the content half, no: PromptAlpha sells AEO article production and Lantad deliberately does not.

**Why does Lantad not sell AEO articles?**

Because the product's value is evidence a buyer can audit. If the same vendor writes the articles and grades the visibility, every improving chart is also an invoice justification, and a reader cannot tell measurement from marketing. Lantad keeps the measurement clean and leaves the writing to you or your agency.

**Do the two track the same engines?**

Not necessarily the same list. Lantad names its engines exactly: 5 metered API engines, an always-on open-weight chain, a grounded engine, and Google AI Overviews via public-SERP capture, up to 8 in total depending on tier, and every run reports per engine whether it was asked, answered, or was never sent the prompt. Check PromptAlpha's current engine list against its own site; published tier contents shift.

---

Lantad measures whether AI crawlers can actually read a page: it fetches as a non-rendering
crawler, renders as a browser, and reports the gap. Free scan, one URL, no signup.

Method and weights: https://lantad.co/methodology | All pages as markdown: https://lantad.co/md | Crawler policy: https://lantad.co/bot