Skip to content

AI search visibility companies, compared in 2026

We publish this comparison and sell Answer Operations services. We exclude ourselves from the scored table. Read the source, scope and date for each platform; a service and a monitoring subscription do different work.

All 11 at a glance

Eight criteria a buyer can verify. Full detail in each entry below. Every price carries the date it was checked.

The 11 companies on this page, with best fit, published entry price and score out of eight
AgencyBest forEntry priceScoreJump to entry
AnswerMentionsa published productized audit price$499 onceas of 25 Sep 20262 of 8View
Citanta cheap fixed price citation diagnostic$440 onceas of 15 Sep 20264 of 8View
Digital Elevatorbuying discrete AI visibility sprintsNot verifiedas of 29 Sep 20262 of 8View
Discovered Labsfunded SaaS buying a full retainer in euro4,370 euro onceas of 15 Sep 20263 of 8View
Embarquesmall teams on a published monthly tier$1,500 per monthas of 15 Sep 20264 of 8View
LoudFacean eight stage published delivery method$5,000 per monthas of 15 Sep 20263 of 8View
Minuttiaa published AI search data study$5,000 or more; minimum engagementas of 28 Oct 20263 of 8View
Omniscient DigitalB2B software with pipeline reporting$120,000 per yearas of 28 Oct 20263 of 8View
Optimista published price ladder for B2B SaaS$2,500 onceas of 28 Oct 20262 of 8View
Rampiqa fixed price audit before a retainerNot verifiedas of 29 Sep 20262 of 8View
WebFXa published rate card across eight tiers$3,000 per monthas of 28 Oct 20263 of 8View
YesPartialNoOne segment for each of the eight criteria, in the order of the scorecard.

Key takeaways

What does an AI search visibility company do?

It works to get a company named and cited inside the answers AI engines produce for buyer questions. In practice that is three jobs: measuring which vendors the engines name today, fixing what the engines can read about the company, and getting in front of the third party sources those answers cite.

Agency or productized service?

A productized service sells a fixed scope at a fixed price and ends. An agency sells a retainer and continues. This page lists both, because the honest first purchase for most buyers is a fixed scope measurement, and the retainer decision belongs after it.

How was this list scored?

On eight criteria checkable on each company's own site: published method with at least one complete question set public, open data with a DOI, engines named, an entry price published and payable without a call, published refund terms, named B2B software case studies, third party reviews with a count, and whether the results reach the buyer's own systems.

What does it cost?

The dated company-specific pricing cells show the published offers and their buying routes. Compare scope, billing and the evidence delivered before deciding whether a proposal meets your needs.

Is Broadcastwell on this list?

Broadcastwell publishes this comparison and sells Answer Operations services in this market. We exclude ourselves from the scored tables. Read the dated sources and scope for each provider.

Retainer or deliverable

The word company does more work in this category than it looks. Some firms on this page sell a monthly retainer with a twelve month minimum. Others sell a single report at a fixed price and stop. Both call the work AI search visibility, and a buyer comparing them on brand rather than on shape will end up comparing a $440 deliverable with a $120,000 year (prices checked 15 Sep 2026).

The shape matters because of what is knowable at the start. Nobody, including Broadcastwell, can tell a company what a year of this work will return before measuring where it stands. A fixed price measurement makes that first decision cheap and reversible. A twelve month retainer makes it expensive and slow.

Three facts on this page come from Broadcastwell's own research rather than from a vendor. The 2026 State of GEO scored 860 AI answers across 85 B2B software companies in 61 categories and traced 5,160 citations across 1,753 unique domains. The Absence Ladder, its second volume, classifies why a vendor is absent rather than only recording that it is. The third volume measures cross engine divergence and carries the DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21789120. All three are published open access under CC BY 4.0 and are not peer reviewed.

No other company on this page publishes open data with a DOI. Several publish first party studies as blog posts, with sample sizes stated and no dataset attached, and those are noted in their rows.

How we scored

Every cell below was read on each company's own site on 15 September 2026. Reviews were read on Clutch for every company, and on G 2 where G 2 allowed the read, on 16 September 2026. Facts rechecked on 25 September 2026 say so where they appear. Where a company does not publish something, the cell says No rather than guessing. The companies are listed alphabetically. Nobody on this page is ranked, and the publisher is not scored.

Method

Method published, and at least one complete question set public: a study dataset, an index, a public sample or a named case.

Open data

Open data published with a DOI.

Engines

Engine coverage stated by name.

Price

Entry price published and buyable without a call.

Refund

Refund or guarantee terms published.

B2B cases

Named B2B software case studies on the site.

Reviews

Third party reviews, with the count.

Machine readable

The buyer's own AI can read the results, through an account, an export or a connector.

Yes means a reader can verify it on the company's own site. Partial means part of it is published, for example a price that is published but sold only through a call. No means the company's own site does not publish it. For the method criterion, Yes means the method is published and at least one complete question set is public, in a study dataset, an index, a public sample or a named case; Partial means a method is described but no question set is public; No means neither.

Read on each company's own site on 15 September 2026. Agencies and productized services are scored on the same eight criteria, so a fixed price deliverable and a retainer sit in the same table. Reviews were read on 16 September 2026, on Clutch for every company and on G2 where G2 allowed the read, and each cell names the platform behind its count. Citant Method and Open data were rechecked on 23 October 2026 and are now Yes: its public method, complete 50-question CSV and Zenodo dataset v 1.4 meet these two criteria. The source links and dates appear in its entry. Other cells retain their original dates.

The list

AnswerMentions: best for a published productized audit price

2 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodYes
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundNo
  • B2B casesNo
  • ReviewsNo
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • It publishes a fixed one off audit price with an itemized deliverable list; the audit itself is requested through a contact form (checked 25 Sep 2026).
  • It publishes a sample report and a scoring methodology page, so the deliverable can be inspected before buying.
  • Reports are saved to an account behind a verified email login.

Limitations

  • No named client or case study is published anywhere on the site, and the sample report uses a placeholder company.
  • No turnaround time is stated for the paid audit.

Citant: best for a cheap fixed price citation diagnostic

4 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodYes
  • Open dataYes
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundYes
  • B2B casesNo
  • ReviewsNot verified
  • Machine readableNo

What they do well

  • Method and Open data rechecked 23 October 2026: the benchmark publishes its sampling method, exclusions and all 50 buyer questions. The question CSV contains 50 rows, P01 to P50. Both cells meet the stated criteria and are Yes.
  • Dataset version 1.4 is published on Zenodo under DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23350790, dated 12 October 2026, under CC BY 4.0. The live report identifies version 1.4 and an update on 13 October. Other facts retain their earlier dates.
  • It publishes exact prices for all three products, including a fixed price audit with a stated 72 hour turnaround.
  • It publishes a falsifiable refund condition tied to a named number of agreed queries across a named number of tracked platforms, rather than a vague promise.
  • It states the six AI platforms it tracks and reports its share of model metric per platform separately.

Limitations

  • Its about page states the company was founded on 16 October 2025.
  • One client case study is published, and it is a consumer browser extension rather than B2B software.

Digital Elevator: best for buying discrete AI visibility sprints

2 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundNo
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsNot verified
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • It prints a from price for every product on one page, including its AI visibility and off site campaign products.
  • It published a first party study of 33 businesses and 177 buyer intent prompts across four named engines.
  • It publishes AI specific client results, including LLM session lift figures per named client.

Limitations

  • Prices are from figures only, with no fixed scope attached.
  • Direct purchase is not available and a discovery call is required.

Discovered Labs: best for funded SaaS buying a full retainer in euro

3 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundPartial
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsYes
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • It publishes exact monthly retainer prices and a fixed one off diagnostic price with a stated turnaround in business days.
  • It names real B2B software clients with specific AI visibility movement, including one moving from 38 percent to 64 percent.
  • It runs its own tracker across five named engines and gives retainer clients dashboard access with an export.

Limitations

  • Prices are quoted in euro only, and the diagnostic is credited against a retainer rather than refunded.
  • The tracker is not sold separately and is available only to retainer clients.

Embarque: best for small teams on a published monthly tier

4 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundYes
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsYes
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • It publishes four tiers with exact monthly prices, the lowest in this set of agencies, and states its billing terms on the same page.
  • Its case study index carries around 35 entries, several reporting AI citation counts over a stated 90 day window.
  • It publishes a money back guarantee and a cancel any time policy on the homepage.

Limitations

  • Several AI visibility case studies are listed by category only, with no client named.
  • The money back guarantee is stated with no conditions, timeframe or eligibility rule, and its AI SEO FAQ quotes a monthly range that does not line up with the four published tiers.

LoudFace: best for an eight stage published delivery method

3 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundNo
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsYes
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • It publishes an eight stage methodology with each stage described rather than named in a slogan.
  • It published a first party citation study covering 128,515 citations across three named engines over a stated 90 day window.
  • It publishes a named AI visibility case study with per prompt citation share and average cited position.

Limitations

  • Only a floor price is published, and the three named tiers carry no individual prices.
  • Fixed scope project prices are referred to on the pricing page but not printed.

Minuttia: best for a published AI search data study

3 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundNo
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsYes
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • It publishes a full research methodology, including prompt counts by type, the five platforms sampled, an LLM judge against a fixed five way rubric, a limitations section and downloadable aggregate data.
  • Its llms.txt publishes the year it was founded, a named reporting stack and a typical minimum engagement, which makes the commercial shape checkable.
  • The Meilisearch case study names the client and states the size of the 259 query set behind the work, alongside its LLM traffic and conversion figures; the queries themselves are not listed.

Limitations

  • The minimum engagement figure in llms.txt is labelled as a directory-listing figure, not a service-page rate card.
  • The published study carries no DOI and no citation guidance.

Omniscient Digital: best for B2B software with pipeline reporting

3 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundNo
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsYes
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • The SEO strategy page publishes a $120,000 annual floor for full-service engagements, so you can check the stated entry cost before a call.
  • Almost every case study is a named B2B software client, including Jasper, Smartling, SpotDraft and Lokalise, with several reporting pipeline figures rather than traffic alone.
  • Its homepage reports an 81 percent increase in LLM visibility and a 140 percent increase in AI citations for Convert over 60 days. These are the agency's own case-study claims (as of 29 Sep 2026).

Limitations

  • Publishes no guarantee, refund or contract term.
  • Its own AI information page carries no pricing, no engagement minimum and no client list, so it does not match the pricing published on the services page.

Optimist: best for a published price ladder for B2B SaaS

2 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundNo
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsNot verified
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • The AI search page gives a $2,500 floor for a one-time roadmap and a $3,000 monthly advisory floor. You can check those entry costs before a call.
  • The AEO page names seven surfaces, including ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google's conversational AI, Google AI Overviews, Google and Bing.
  • It publishes three AEO case studies with LLM revenue and LLM referral figures, and names B2B software clients including Stampli, Contentstack and HelloSign elsewhere on the site.

Limitations

  • The three AEO case studies name no client, describing them as a large B2B tech client, a retail client and a fintech client.
  • The CORE Framework page describes stages and phases but publishes no scoring rubric, prompt set or classification rules.

Rampiq: best for a fixed price audit before a retainer

2 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundNo
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsNot verified
  • Machine readablePartial

What they do well

  • It publishes three price points for AI visibility work, including a fixed price one time audit, which is unusual in this set.
  • The audit page itemizes five deliverables and scopes the roadmap to a stated page and keyword count.
  • Its about page states team size, countries and the named leadership team.

Limitations

  • Its dedicated audit page names no specific AI engine, referring only to LLMs and Google AI Overviews.
  • Monthly programs are quoted as from figures with no upper bound or scope table published.

WebFX: best for a published rate card across eight tiers

3 of 8verifiable yeses
  • MethodPartial
  • Open dataNo
  • EnginesYes
  • PricePartial
  • RefundNo
  • B2B casesYes
  • ReviewsNot verified
  • Machine readableYes

What they do well

  • The GEO page lists seven numeric monthly prices plus a By Quote tier.
  • The GEO page names ten specific AI surfaces, including Claude, Grok and Apple Intelligence.
  • Three case studies on the index are stated in AI sourced traffic or lead terms, with the client named.

Limitations

  • All GEO plans carry a stated six month commitment and no refund or performance guarantee is published.
  • Its case study index of more than 60 entries contains one B2B software example.

About the publisher

Broadcastwell publishes this list and sells Answer Operations. We do not score ourselves here. Read the two $490 entry scopes and the full ladder on our pricing page. Prices and terms. Our methodology. Three named client accounts. We do not claim a third-party review score here.

How to choose

How to choose: criteria, what good looks like, and the red flag
CriterionWhat good looks likeThe red flag
MethodThe method is on the site, versioned and dated, and at least one complete question set is public, so a second party could repeat the run.A named framework with no question set, no sample size and no rule for what counts as a mention.
DataThe underlying research is published openly with a DOI and a stated limitations section.A headline percentage with no dataset, no denominator and no link.
EnginesThe engines are named, and the report separates them rather than folding them into one score.The site says AI search, LLMs or answer engines and never names one.
PriceAn entry price is printed on the site and can be paid without a call.Custom quote only, or a price that is printed but still needs a sales call to act on.
RefundRefund or guarantee terms are published, with the condition that would trigger them.A money back guarantee with no timeframe, no condition and no eligibility rule.
CasesNamed clients in your own category, with the measurement described rather than only the outcome.Results attributed to a B2B tech client or a fintech client with no name attached.
ReviewsA third party review profile with the count visible.A rating quoted on the company's own site with no link to the profile behind it.
Machine readableThe observed answers, their engines, their dates and their sources land somewhere your own AI can read.A monthly slide deck, and nothing your systems can query.

The eight criteria are not a ranking of quality. They are the eight things a buyer can check in an afternoon without talking to anyone, and they are the eight things that decide whether a claim can be argued with later. A firm that publishes its question set can be told it asked the wrong questions. A firm that publishes nothing can only be believed or not believed.

The single most useful question to ask any firm on this page is how the questions were written. AI answers to questions that already contain a company name will usually contain that name, so a mention count built on name seeded questions measures the prompt rather than the engine. Broadcastwell published that finding against its own category research, and it is the reason no question in a Category Audit names any brand.

The second most useful question is what happens when the runs disagree. AI answers vary between runs and shift as models update, so a single screenshot is not a measurement. Ask how many runs sit behind a figure, and whether the disagreement between them is reported or averaged away.

What it costs

Published entry prices
CompanyPublished entry priceWhat that price buysAs of
AnswerMentions$499 onceA one time audit at $499, requested through a Request full audit contact form rather than a checkout (checked 25 Sep 2026), then a monthly fix plan and an agency white label tier.25 Sep 2026
Citant$440 onceA one time AI Search Audit at $440, delivered within 72 hours of kickoff, then a fixed price initial engagement and a retainer from $5,000 a month. The price is published but the route is a contact form.15 Sep 2026
Digital ElevatorNot verifiedThe previous sprint price was removed because the source did not return readable pricing on 29 September 2026.29 Sep 2026
Discovered Labs4,370 euro onceA one off Search Visibility Diagnostic at 4,370 euro with a stated six business day turnaround, then retainers from 6,995 euro a month. Every tier books a call.15 Sep 2026
Embarque$1,500 per monthFour published monthly tiers from $1,500 to $10,000, billed over three, six or twelve months paid quarterly. Every tier books a call.15 Sep 2026
LoudFace$5,000 per monthA published floor of $5,000 a month across three named tiers, on a three month initial engagement with no setup fee. The route is an intro call.15 Sep 2026
Minuttia$5,000 or more; minimum engagementThe company's llms.txt labels $5,000+ as a typical minimum engagement from directory listings. It states no billing period or minimum term. The AEO page read on 28 October 2026 shows no rate card.28 Oct 2026
Omniscient Digital$120,000 per yearThe SEO strategy and AEO service pages state a $120,000 annual floor for full-service engagements. Neither page shows a separate strategy-package price or a billing schedule. Both book a strategy call. Read on 28 October 2026.28 Oct 2026
Optimist$2,500 onceOne-time strategy and roadmap engagements start at $2,500. Advisory retainers start at $3,000 a month and are month-to-month. No full-service rate is shown on the AI search page read on 28 October 2026. Every tier books a strategy call.28 Oct 2026
RampiqNot verifiedThe previously stated audit and program prices could not be confirmed on the homepage read on 29 September 2026; no current price is asserted.29 Sep 2026
WebFX$3,000 per monthSeven numeric GEO tiers start at $3,000 a month; the eighth is By Quote. The progressive monthly optimization row states a six-month commitment. Every route is a proposal request. Read on 28 October 2026.28 Oct 2026
Not published means the company publishes no price on its own site. Each price was read on the company's own site on the date in its row. Broadcastwell publishes this page and is not in this table; its prices are on its pricing page.

Price records are dated individually. Unverified prices are marked, and no current market-wide price or purchase-route count is asserted.

We offer two entries: Answer Repair, $490 for one buyer question and one source-backed page or fix, and Agency Deadline Audit, $490 for one white-label client report and one paste-ready change. Fix Sprint is $3,900 ($3,410 after the $490 entry is credited, once), for six contracted pages or rewrites over 30 days. Care is $490 a month after setup. Program is $5,500 a month. The 150-page build is $6,000 plus $250 a page, in batches of 25, after a 5-page paid trial. Read /pricing for each scope and /terms for its deadline and refund conditions.

Fix Sprint is $3,900 ($3,410 after the $490 entry is credited, once). Its six contracted pages or rewrites over 30 days include the credited entry page. One primary test is agreed before payment and re-measured at day 30. Measured gain on that test, or the full $3,900 back. You keep the work.

Questions

What is AI search visibility?

It is the work of getting a company named and cited inside the answers AI engines produce, rather than ranked in a list of links. The unit of success is a mention or a citation inside an answer to a buyer question.

Is this list a measurement of which company is best?

No, and it does not claim to be. Broadcastwell publishes this page and sells in this market. What the page does is count what each company publishes that a buyer can verify on the company's own site. The companies are listed alphabetically, none of them is ranked, and Broadcastwell is not on the list or in any table: it publishes the page and does not score itself.

Should a buyer start with a retainer or a one off?

A fixed price measurement first, in almost every case. Nobody can say what a year of this work will return before measuring where a company stands, and a fixed scope makes the first decision cheap and reversible.

What research exists in this category?

Broadcastwell publishes three volumes of the 2026 State of GEO open access under CC BY 4.0, not peer reviewed, with DOIs, covering 860 AI answers across 85 B2B software companies in 61 categories and 5,160 traced citations. No other company on this page publishes open data with a DOI.

Do any of these companies guarantee a result?

No. AI answers vary between runs and shift as models update, and no inclusion, ranking, lead or revenue can be guaranteed. Broadcastwell offers a Fix Sprint for $3,900 ($3,410 after the $490 entry is credited, once). Six contracted pages or rewrites over 30 days, including any credited entry page. One primary test is agreed before payment and re-measured at day 30: naming, own-domain citation or buyer-task completion. Measured gain on that test, or the full $3,900 back. The client keeps the work.

Who owns the data at the end?

With Broadcastwell, the question set, the citation logs, the observed answers and the reports belong to the client and are returned in an open machine readable format within five business days of a request, at no charge. Ask every company on this page the same question before signing.

One buyer question. One completed repair.

Answer Repair is $490 for one source-backed page or fix. Choose Live or Handoff before payment. We confirm Ready within 60 minutes during business hours. If anything is missing, a member of our team contacts you directly and finishes it with you.

Due 48 elapsed hours after recorded Ready. If we miss the deliverable or deadline, we initiate a full $490 refund within five business days. You keep the work. You may also request a full refund within 30 days of delivery.

Fix one answer, $490

Read every scope and price · Versioned terms

One buyer question. One completed repair.

We build one source-backed page or fix for $490. Choose Live or Handoff before payment. We confirm Ready within 60 minutes during business hours. If anything is missing, a member of our team contacts you directly and finishes it with you. The deadline is 48 elapsed hours after recorded Ready.

If we miss the deliverable or deadline, we initiate a full $490 refund within five business days. You keep the work. You may also request a full refund within 30 days of delivery.

Fix one answer, $490