The 10 Best AEO/GEO Software Tools for B2B SaaS in 2026 (And When You Don't Need One)

From $99/month (ChatGPT only, 50 prompts) · Growth $399/month adds Perplexity and Google AI Overviews · Enterprise covers up to 9 engines · $155M+ raised; valued at $1B in February 2026 · 700+ enterprise customers, including more than 10% of the Fortune 500

Profound defined this category and remains its reference point. Answer Engine Insights shows how AI models describe your brand across markets, Conversation Explorer mines what buyers actually ask, and Agent Analytics tracks AI agents visiting your site. The depth is real, and so are the constraints: self-serve plans bill annually only, the entry tier is ChatGPT-only, and it diagnoses far better than it executes. You get an exceptional map of the problem; the fixing is your job.

Choose it if: you're enterprise-scale and need credible AI visibility data across many engines and markets.

From €85/month Starter to €425/month Advanced · 3 models on self-serve tiers, up to 11 on enterprise · Berlin-based · $21M Series A; $10M ARR within 16 months of launch

Peec built its reputation on data quality, tracking real AI interfaces rather than API approximations, and on a clean multi-brand workspace that agencies like. It is monitoring in its purest form: no content generation, no fix workflows, no historical backfill before you start tracking. The European base is a quiet advantage for UK buyers, since prompt sets and language coverage aren’t US defaults.

Choose it if: you want reliable citation and share-of-voice data across markets without enterprise pricing.

Free Insights tier; Solo (100 tracked prompts and pages, ChatGPT insights only, 20,000 tasks) and Pro (250 tracked prompts and pages, multi-engine insights across ChatGPT, Google AI, Perplexity and Gemini, 75,000 tasks, unlimited seats), neither of which publishes a price · Enterprise custom · 14-day trial · customers include Webflow, Ramp, Carta, monday.com and Klaviyo

AirOps is the most execution-heavy platform here, and it is not really a monitor: an Insights layer tracks visibility and citations, then an Action layer of agents and workflows creates, refreshes and publishes content against what it finds, with CMS integrations and an offsite module for third-party mentions. Ramp reports a 56% lift in subscriptions in 30 days from content engineered for agents; Webflow says AI-attributed signups went from 2% to over 10% in a year.

Two caveats. Billing runs on “tasks” that are hard to forecast before you build workflows, and paid plans carry no published price, so you will be quoted. The entry paid tier also watches ChatGPT only; multi-engine insight sits a tier up.

Choose it if: you have a content team ready to operate a platform and want production volume driven by AI search data.

Explorer $399/month self-serve (7-day trial; ChatGPT, AI Overviews and Perplexity as core models) · Pro and Enterprise quote-based, up to 11 engines including DeepSeek, Grok and Meta AI · monitoring, content creation and attribution in one platform

Goodie’s engine coverage at the top end is among the broadest available, and it’s one of the few tools that drafts AEO-oriented content rather than only scoring it. The trade-offs: everything above the entry tier needs a sales call, and its monitoring depth is generally rated below the Tier-1 specialists.

Choose it if: breadth of engines plus content drafting in one subscription appeals.

Growth $599/month: 600 prompts run daily across 6 platforms, 10 seats, unlimited domains, and 18 publish-ready articles per month · Enterprise adds Claude and Grok (also available on any plan via your own API key) · San Francisco

Gauge is the clearest answer in the software category to the criticism running through this list: it bundles real content production into the subscription, plus an Action Center that turns findings into tasks. It prices above pure monitors, which is fair given it includes work others leave to you. It does not include the strategy layer deciding which prompts and pages matter for your pipeline, or anything outside content: technical fixes, digital PR, off-site mentions.

Choose it if: you have strategy in-house and need production volume against a monitored prompt set.

Essential $95/month: 50 prompts, 1 project, 4 tracked models, 6,000 responses a month, 7-day free trial · Professional $245/month adds a second project, 150 prompts and 5 AEO articles a month · Business $579/month · models available include ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, Claude, Gemini, Meta, DeepSeek and Grok · Amsterdam-based

Promptwatch scrapes the real LLM interfaces rather than querying APIs, which puts its data quality argument alongside Peec’s, and it is unusually open for a monitoring product: MCP and API access ship on the entry plan, so your own systems can read the data instead of a human reading a dashboard. Content generation arrives at Professional, and agentic optimisation at Business. The catch at entry is scope: one project and four models, so a multi-product SaaS company outgrows Essential quickly.

Choose it if: you manage several brands, or you want visibility data flowing into your own stack via API or MCP.

Pro from $125/month: 100 prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews and Perplexity, 9,000 AI answers analysed monthly, 20 articles a month, 200 site audits, unlimited domains, multi-country tracking · higher tiers above it · 14-day free trial · founded 2025

Searchable bundles more per pound than anything else here: at $125 you get monitoring, content production and technical audits, plus integrations into Google Analytics, Search Console and CRM. That breadth is also the caveat. A young platform doing four jobs will not match a specialist at any one of them, and three engines is narrower than Promptwatch or AthenaHQ offer at similar money. Worth knowing: several agencies run client reporting on Searchable under their own branding, so you may already be paying for it indirectly.

Choose it if: you want monitoring, content and audits in one subscription for around £100 a month.

Free Essential tier; Starter $295/month · 9 models tracked including ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews, AI Mode, Gemini, Claude, Copilot and Grok · Y Combinator-backed · content agents and an action centre alongside monitoring

AthenaHQ packs an ambitious feature set (tracking, brand-integrity checks, content agents) into a startup price, and the free tier means you can see your baseline before paying anything. It is young: case studies are thin, and the credit system can get expensive if you push the agents hard. A sensible first tool for a seed-to-Series-A SaaS company.

Choose it if: you want maximum surface area per pound at the earliest stage.

Lite from $29/month · 15 search prompts · covers ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Copilot · Claude, Gemini and AI Mode are paid add-ons from $9/month · self-serve tiers up to $489/month; enterprise from $1,000

Otterly has become a default entry point in the category for good reason: real multi-engine coverage at a price any team can expense. The limits follow from the price. Fifteen prompts samples your category rather than mapping it, extra engines cost extra, and there are no execution features at all.

Choose it if: you want a first read on your AI visibility for under £30 a month.

$99/month per domain · 25 custom prompts tracked · covers ChatGPT, Google AI, Gemini and Perplexity · sold as its own toolkit that sits alongside the SEO suite your team already uses

The pragmatic choice: if Semrush is already your source of truth, adding AI visibility per domain beats onboarding a new vendor. Depth is the trade-off. Prompt research and citation analysis run shallower than Profound or Peec, and per-domain pricing adds up for multi-product companies.

Choose it if: consolidation into one suite outweighs best-in-class depth.

None of these tools, at any price, implements the full fix: content, technical changes, entity clean-up and the off-site mentions that correlate most strongly with AI visibility.

So the question that decides your budget is who does the work the tool creates, and that carries a cost nobody’s pricing page mentions. A monitoring subscription typically needs 0.2–1.0 FTE of marketing time to turn reports into shipped changes. The software is usually the smallest line in the true cost: a £3,800-a-year dashboard plus half a marketer’s salary costs more than most agency retainers, and at the end of it you own a well-documented problem rather than a fixed one.

The binding constraint is hours. Someone has to read the dashboard weekly, decide which gaps are commercially worth closing, write the content, ship the technical fixes and chase the third-party mentions. That is one to four days a week, every week, indefinitely.

Buy a tool if you have a dedicated SEO or AI search specialist with genuine hours free. The tool gives them evidence and a baseline, and their existing content and dev workflows do the rest. It is the cheapest path when the capacity is real.

Hire an agency if the work would land on a marketer already wearing six hats. This is the common case, and the failure mode is predictable: the subscription gets bought, the dashboard gets checked twice, and the reports pile up unactioned. An agency takes the whole burden: measurement, decisions, content, technical work and outreach. You get those days back. The same applies if your AI search problem is tangled up with SEO, as it usually is. Ahrefs’ 2026 study of 863,000 keywords found 38% of AI Overview citations come from the top 10 results for the same query, the largest single group but well short of a guarantee.

This is the model Scalux is built on. We own the result end to end: monitoring, content, technical fixes, off-site mentions and reporting, not just the metrics dashboard. AI search, SEO and advertising run as one system, because the channels feed each other: rankings drive citations, and ads data shows which prompts actually convert into pipeline. Pricing is a fixed fee from £250 per month with monitoring included, and no scoping call before you learn the price. If that’s the shape of help you need, our AI search service and pricing pages have the detail.

Attribution in AI search is hard, and any vendor who tells you otherwise is selling. AI assistants do not pass referrer headers consistently, so a buyer who reads about you in ChatGPT and then types your domain arrives in analytics as direct traffic. GA4, your CRM and your visibility tool will each report a different number for the same quarter, because each measures something different: sessions, self-reported source, and mentions in a sampled prompt set.

Four layers together produce a defensible picture, not a precise one:

1. Server logs. Track hits from OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User, PerplexityBot and ClaudeBot. This is first-party evidence that engines are fetching your pages, and it moves before answers do, making it the earliest signal you have.
2. Self-reported attribution. A “how did you hear about us?” field on your demo form catches the buyers analytics will never attribute. Unfashionable, and often the most accurate line in the report.
3. Tool data. Mention and citation rates against a fixed prompt set, tracked as a trend rather than an absolute. Change the prompt set and you break the comparison.
4. Referral traffic and UTMs where links are clicked and tags survive, accepting that this undercounts.

Reconcile them monthly, and present the caveats alongside the numbers. A board that understands the uncertainty is easier to keep than one given false precision that falls apart under questioning.

AI search. The broader environment: every surface where an AI system answers a question directly instead of returning a list of links, including ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode.

AEO (answer engine optimisation). Work aimed at being the answer in Google’s AI-generated results. Vendors often use it interchangeably with GEO.

GEO (generative engine optimisation). Work aimed at being cited inside generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity.

Answer engine. Any system that synthesises a single answer from multiple sources rather than ranking links. Used interchangeably with AI search engine.

Prompt set. The fixed list of buyer questions a tool runs repeatedly against each engine. Prompt allowance is the main thing separating a $29 plan from a $599 one, and a set that does not match how your buyers ask will produce confident, useless data.

Mention. Your brand is named in an AI answer. A mention is not a citation: models frequently name brands without linking to them, drawing on training data rather than retrieval.

Citation. The answer links to a page on your site as a source. Citations are traceable in server logs and analytics; mentions usually are not.

Share of voice. Your brand’s mentions as a percentage of all brand mentions across a defined prompt set and competitive set. The closest AI-search equivalent of market share, and the metric most suited to board reporting.

Visibility score. A vendor’s blended index of mention rate, citation rate and position. Every platform calculates it differently, so scores are not comparable between tools. Track the trend inside one tool rather than the number across several.

Fan-out query. The sub-queries an engine generates from one buyer question before answering. Ranking for those related sub-queries, rather than only the original phrase, is increasingly what earns a citation.