Buyer's guide
Prefer is the best AI search optimization tool: it rewrites and drafts pages AI engines cite, then re-measures, from $24/mo. 9 tools ranked by what they do.
The short answer
Prefer is the best AI search optimization tool in 2026: it scores and rewrites your existing pages for answer engines, drafts the pages you are missing from sourced facts, publishes to your CMS and re-runs the affected prompts to show whether the citation moved, from $24 a month. It is our product, and it scores 23 of 25 on the rubric printed below, on the same rules as every other row. This list ranks tools by what they do to a site to win AI answers, so monitoring-only products are excluded. Writesonic is the lean all-in-one, AirOps the content engine at volume, AthenaHQ the free start, and HubSpot AEO the pick for teams already inside HubSpot.
Prefer Rewrites, drafts, publishes and re-measures, from $24/mo 
Writesonic Track, prioritize, act and prove in one seat 
AirOps Bulk production and CMS publishing DisclosurePrefer publishes this list and Prefer is on it, ranked first on a rubric we print in full so you can re-derive every number. Competitor facts come from rendered reads of each vendor's public pages on the dates in the sources list; where a figure is not yet a rendered check (Writesonic) the page says so. Tools that only monitor AI visibility are excluded by the inclusion rule, not by judgement of quality.
In short
How we evaluated
Prefer is the best AI search optimization tool because it rewrites your pages, drafts new ones from sourced facts, publishes them and re-runs the prompts to prove the answer moved, from $24/mo. This list ranks tools by what they do to a site to win AI answers, and excludes monitor-only tools. Writesonic is the lean all-in-one, AirOps the content engine at volume, AthenaHQ the free start.
The line that defines this list. A tool that rewrites your page, or drafts a new one, is an optimization tool. A tool that scores your visibility and hands you a recommendation is a monitor with a to-do list. Ask which one you are buying before you look at engines or price.
Drafts that sit in a tool are not optimization. Check whether the tool publishes to your CMS, and whether technical fixes (schema, robots, llms.txt) are deployed or only suggested. Most vendors document publishing; few document deployment of fixes.
AI answers lean on listicles, review sites and communities you do not own. On this list only Prefer Managed and AirOps' Offsite do off-page work for you; AthenaHQ and Qwairy queue it; the rest leave it out. Decide whether that half is your team's job.
Without a re-measure step you are optimizing blind. Only Prefer and Writesonic document one: Prefer re-runs the affected prompts after each action, Writesonic reports lift at day 14 and day 28. Every other tool tracks a trend and lets you infer.
Credits (AthenaHQ, PromptWatch, Qwairy), tasks (AirOps), articles per month (Prefer, PromptWatch, Writesonic) or prompts (HubSpot AEO, Scrunch). The meter decides the real price of doing the work, so read it before the sticker.
The scores
Each dimension is scored 0 to 5 on the scale below and the overall is the plain average, so you can check every number against the facts on this page. Prefer is our product and is scored on the same scale.
| Tool | On-page optimisation | Content production | Off-page | Verification | Published price | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prefer (our product) | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.6/5 |
| Writesonic | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.4/5 |
| AirOps | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 3.4/5 |
| AthenaHQ | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.2/5 |
| PromptWatch | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.2/5 |
| Qwairy | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.2/5 |
| Profound | 5.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 3.0/5 |
| HubSpot AEO | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 2.4/5 |
| Scrunch AI | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.0/5 |
How each number is set
Scored 26 September 2026 from the facts on this page: the capability table above and each tool's pricing note, which trace to rendered reads of the vendors' public pages on the dates in the sources list (Writesonic is a site read, not a rendered check, and its price band is scored with that caveat). The four capability dimensions map the table's yes, partial and no marks to fixed numbers, so no tool is scored on anything the table does not already say. All nine tools are scored. Prefer's row uses the same rules as every other row; it scores 3 on off-page because that work is done on Prefer Managed, not on self-serve plans, and this page says so.
Five kinds of tool
Score a page for answer engines, rewrite it, draft what is missing, publish, then re-run the prompts to record whether the answer moved. Off-page done for you on the managed plan.
Buy one if you want the work shipped and proven, not listed.A tracker and a writer in one product. Strong for lean teams; watch the meters (credits, article quotas) and which tier includes the action layer.
Buy one if one seat has to cover tracking and writing.Agents that generate, rewrite and publish pages at volume, with deep measurement behind them. Priced by quote for brands.
Buy one if volume or enterprise data is the constraint and a sales cycle is fine.Free or low-cost entry, credits as the meter, agents or briefs you run yourself. Publishing exists on AthenaHQ; Qwairy stops at briefs and diagnostics.
Buy one if you want to prove the category before paying and will operate the tools.Prioritized recommendations or audits that tell your team what to create, update or reformat. They qualify here because they act on pages, but the writing is yours.
Buy one if you already own the platform they live in and have writers to act on the queue.The ranked list
Ordered by overall score on the printed rubric (on-page, content production, off-page, verification, published price), ties alphabetical. Prefer is our product, disclosed, scored on the same rules.
PreferPrefer is our product. Optimise Content reads a URL, reads the AI answers that URL should be winning, and reports the gap as two scores, one for search engines and one for answer engines, with the terms winning answers use, the follow-up questions your page leaves open, the verifiable facts it lacks, and each fix written as a suggested edit you accept. Create Content drafts new pages against a real brief built from the answers you are losing and refuses to write a claim it cannot source. Every plan includes 15 or more AI articles a month and all five engines. Action Center turns every finding into a scored task, assigns it to an agent or your team, and re-runs the affected prompts after it ships so each action closes as a win or a miss. Off-page work (listicles, review sites, PR, community) is done for you on Prefer Managed; self-serve plans queue it for your team.
WritesonicWritesonic started as an AI writer and now sells itself as an AI search growth engine. Its four stages are Track (visibility across engines), Prioritize (an Action Center ranking opportunities by impact), Act (content optimization, citation earning, technical fixes, crawler access) and Prove (lift at day 14 and day 28 with attribution). The AI Article Writer, Chatsonic and an SEO checker stay in the product as the production layer. Entry is $79 a month billed annually ($99 monthly) with 15 AI articles; Growth gets an Action Center trial and the full Action Center is Enterprise only. Self-serve plans track ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overviews, and all eight engines are Enterprise only (rendered check, 8 October 2026).
AirOpsAirOps is built for teams shipping content at volume. Grids generate and refresh pages in bulk, Workflows automate the pipeline and publish to your CMS, and the Quill agent watches your visibility and drafts and updates pages against it. Measurement covers eight documented engines with citations, sentiment and custom dashboards, plus agent-traffic analytics streamed from Cloudflare, CloudFront, Vercel and Netlify logs. Off-page is the Offsite product, which manages paid placement outreach, negotiation and payment. The pricing page publishes tier structures and task meters (35,000 tasks on Solo, 100,000 on Pro) but no dollar figure anywhere; Solo and Pro have free starts and Enterprise is quoted (rendered 5 and 23 September 2026).
AthenaHQAthenaHQ is the free way into this category. Essential is free with 300 credits across five models and recommendations included; Starter is $295 a month ($245 billed annually) with 3,600 credits, 11 models, the content agent and on-page and off-page actions. The content agent drafts and publishes to Shopify, Webflow, Wix, Framer, WordPress and Payload, and the plans page adds smart robots.txt and llms.txt management. The agents are self-serve: you scope, run and approve them, and deploying schema or metadata fixes into your own site's code, or re-running specific prompts to verify a change, is not in its documentation (plans rendered 6 and 19 September 2026).
PromptWatchPromptWatch is the closest product to Prefer in shape: it measures AI visibility and acts on it, with meters on both. Essential is $95 a month with 50 prompts, 4 models, 500 agent credits, MCP and API access and no AEO articles; Professional is $245 with 150 prompts and 5 articles a month; Business is $579 with 350 prompts, 10 articles and Agentic AI Search Optimization. Articles publish to Webflow, WordPress and Framer. Its agent suite lists Content Gap Analysis and Technical Optimization, but per-page coverage and a deployment loop are not documented, and there is no per-action re-run after a change. A 7-day trial replaces the old free plan (pricing rendered 23 September 2026; capabilities 22 August 2026).
QwairyQwairy is a credit-based platform with six modules: Cockpit, Monitor, Analyze, Act, Optimize and Measure. The optimization work lives in Act (Action Center, Content Opportunities, Backlink Opportunities, Content Studio) and Optimize (Site Readiness, Site Diagnostics), with GEO optimization over a unified page inventory that carries AI citation data. Content Studio generates citation-ready briefs at 50 credits each, from the same pool that pays for monitoring (one credit per prompt per model per run), and new analyses pause when the balance hits zero. Every plan covers ten engines, including AI Mode, Claude and Grok, and includes MCP server access. Starter is $89 a month with 1,300 credits and up to 100 prompts; Growth is $229; Business is $519 (USD pricing rendered 26 September 2026). Publishing to a CMS, and off-page work beyond finding opportunities, are not on its pricing page.
ProfoundProfound is the deepest tracker on this list and its Agents make it an optimization tool too. Its feature pages say Agents generate complete articles from a topic prompt, connect to your existing CMS and publish approved content, with an approval step before anything goes live; its home page says it rewrites pages with citation decay and stages them in your CMS, and builds pages for questions you have no answer for. Prompt Volumes supplies the questions worth answering from 1.5 billion-plus real AI conversations. For brands, the only published options are a free Trial (50 prompts daily for 7 days on ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overviews) and a custom Enterprise quote; agencies pay $99 a month plus $399 per client workspace (pricing rendered 23 September 2026; feature pages read 18 September 2026). Whether technical fixes such as schema are deployed is not stated clearly, and neither is off-page work.
HubSpot AEOHubSpot AEO is the paid product built on XFunnel, sold standalone at $50 a month ($45 annual) for 25 prompts and bundled into Marketing Hub Pro and Enterprise. Its product page lists multi-engine coverage (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity), brand visibility and sentiment, competitor share of voice and citation analysis, prompt tracking and prioritized AEO recommendations, with the line that it tells you what content to create or update to close the gap, right inside HubSpot. It does not list content generation, CMS publishing beyond HubSpot's own, or off-page work; Google AI Overviews and AI Mode are not in its engine list (rendered 26 September 2026). A free AI Search Grader gives a one-time score.
Scrunch AIScrunch AI, owned by Sitecore since June 2026, is a benchmarking platform with an optimization layer aimed at how agents read your site. Site audits (five a month on Core), page optimization and the Agent Experience Platform reformat existing content for AI agents; findings arrive as audits and recommendations rather than drafted, shipped work, and off-page work is yours. Core is $250 a month for 125 prompts and four engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews, Copilot) with a 7-day trial; Enterprise adds Claude, Gemini and up to nine engines with API and MCP access (rendered 5 September 2026, agency tier re-read 19 September 2026).
Side by side
Capability at the checked-on date, from each vendor's public pages. Yes = documented as done by the product. Partial = the product recommends, briefs, queues or meters it, or does it on a managed plan (Prefer Managed for Prefer's off-page column). No = not documented on the vendor's public pages when we read them, which is not the same as absent. Re-measures = a documented step that re-checks the answer after the work ships, not general tracking.
| Tool | Rewrites pages | Drafts new pages | Deploys to CMS | Off-page work | Re-measures | From |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prefer | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | $24 |
| Writesonic | ✓ | ✓ | - | ~ | ✓ | ~$79 |
| AirOps | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | Free start |
| AthenaHQ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | Free |
| PromptWatch | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | - | ~ | $95 |
| Qwairy | ~ | ~ | - | ~ | ~ | $89 |
| Profound | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | - | ~ | Trial |
| HubSpot AEO | ~ | - | - | - | ~ | $50 |
| Scrunch AI | ~ | - | - | - | ~ | $250 |
The map
PreferOur productWritesonicAirOpsAthenaHQPromptWatchProfoundHubSpot AEOScrunch AI
QwairyWhat changed in 2026
This list looked different a year ago. These are the changes that moved it.
Profound, AthenaHQ and PromptWatch all started as monitors and now ship agents that draft and publish. The line between an AI visibility tool and an AI search optimization tool is now a feature flag, so the inclusion rule on this page is about what the product does, not what it is called.
Writesonic and AirOps came from content production and added multi-engine measurement. They arrive at the same place from the other side: production is their strength, and the measurement layer is the newer part.
HubSpot AEO and Scrunch sell the diagnosis: prioritized recommendations, audits, agent-readability. Useful, but the writing is still yours, so budget for the people who will act on the queue.
Credits, tasks and article quotas are how most of these tools price the work. Two products at the same sticker can cost very different amounts once you run the agents, so the meter is now the number to compare.
Red flags
Every tool here demos well. These are the questions that separate them once the trial ends.
A tool that generates fifty pages a month and never re-checks whether an engine cites them is a content mill with a new label. Ask to see the re-measure step, or the trend line for pages it produced.
AI answers vary from run to run. Any vendor guaranteeing a place in a specific ChatGPT or Gemini answer is promising something it cannot control. A guarantee defined in measurable visibility terms, with the measurement shown, is a different thing.
"Prioritized recommendations" and "optimization opportunities" are a to-do list. If the demo ends when the list appears, the work is still on your team. Ask what happens after you click accept.
Generated content that lives inside the tool is not optimization. Check the publishing integrations against your CMS, and ask whether schema and metadata survive the export.
Credits, tasks and article quotas decide what the work costs. A vendor that quotes a sticker but cannot say what one rewrite or one article spends will surprise you in month two.
If nothing in the product touches the listicles, review sites and communities engines cite, half of AI search optimization is out of scope. That is fine if your team does it; it is not fine if nobody does.
The basics
An AI search optimization tool changes what AI engines find when they research a question: it rewrites and structures your pages so an answer can be lifted, drafts the pages you are missing, fixes what blocks crawlers, and, in the fuller products, earns presence on the third-party sources engines cite. AI visibility tools measure the result; optimization tools change it. The terms below are how this page uses the category's vocabulary.
The category is converging from both ends, trackers adding agents and writers adding trackers, so the useful test is the one in the capability table: what does the product do to a site, and does it check afterwards.
Prefer is the best AI search optimization tool in 2026 because it does the most of the work that changes an AI answer and then proves it: it scores and rewrites your existing pages for answer engines, drafts the pages you are missing from sourced facts, publishes them to your CMS, and re-runs the affected prompts to show whether the citation moved, from $24 a month. It is our product, and we say so. This list is different from our best AI visibility tools roundup on purpose: that page ranks tools by how well they measure. This one ranks tools by what they do to a site to win AI answers, and tools that only monitor are excluded by the inclusion rule. It is also different from our best AI SEO tools list, which covers the SEO-first content optimizers.
AI search optimization is the work of getting your brand cited and recommended in AI answers. The practice guide splits it into three kinds of work: on-page (answer-first structure, the terms and facts engines lift, schema), off-page (presence on the listicles, review sites and communities engines cite) and technical (crawler access, llms.txt). To make this list, a product has to do at least one of those things to a site, not report on it. Nine tools qualified.
The two lists overlap because the category is converging from both ends. Profound, AthenaHQ and PromptWatch started as trackers and now ship agents that draft and publish. Writesonic and AirOps started as writers and added multi-engine measurement. HubSpot AEO and Scrunch sell the diagnosis, prioritized recommendations and audits, and leave the writing to you. They qualify here, at the bottom, because a recommendation is still an action on a page; a visibility chart is not.
The most common on-page change every tool on this list makes is the same one: move the answer to the top and make it liftable. An engine researching a question reads a page for a sentence it can quote. If the sentence is there, in the first screen, with a fact attached, the page gets cited. If it is buried under an introduction, the engine cites the competitor whose page opens with the answer.
Beyond that first edit, Prefer’s Optimise Content checks the terms that appear in the winning answers for your topic, the follow-up questions your page leaves open, the verifiable facts it lacks, and whether the page has one clear job, then writes each fix as a suggested edit you accept. Create Content handles the pages you do not have yet: it reads the answers that beat you and the sources they cite, plans against a brief, and refuses to write a claim it cannot source.
Prefer (our product) is the only tool here that documents all five columns of the capability table above: it rewrites, drafts, publishes to WordPress, Webflow and Contentful, does the off-page work on Prefer Managed, and re-runs the affected prompts after each action. The entry plan is $24 a month with a free trial.
Writesonic is the lean all-in-one: Track, Prioritize, Act, Prove, with an Action Center that ranks fixes and a lift report at day 14 and day 28. Its site read of 5 September 2026 put entry at about $79 a month; we have not yet confirmed that in a rendered browser, so treat it as approximate. Reviewers say the drafts need editing and the Action Center is constrained on the entry tier.
AirOps is the content engine: Grids and Workflows produce and publish at volume, the Quill agent updates pages from visibility data, and Offsite pays for placements. It publishes no dollar price on any tier.
AthenaHQ is the free start with real actions: a content agent that publishes to six CMS platforms, robots.txt and llms.txt management, and queued on-page and off-page actions, self-serve, with the paid step at $295 a month.
PromptWatch meters the work: agent credits on every plan and AEO articles from $245, published to Webflow, WordPress and Framer, with no off-page and no per-action re-run documented.
Qwairy briefs and diagnoses on ten engines from $89 a month; Content Studio briefs cost 50 credits each from the same pool as monitoring, and the writing stays with you.
Profound brings the deepest data to the rewrite: Agents generate articles, rewrite pages with citation decay and publish approved content to your CMS, guided by Prompt Volumes. For brands, the only published route is a free trial then an Enterprise quote. Read our Profound review for the pricing history.
HubSpot AEO ($50 a month, three engines) and Scrunch AI ($250 a month, four engines) close the list as recommendation layers: HubSpot tells you what to create or update inside HubSpot, Scrunch audits and reformats pages for AI agents. Both are honest about what they are, and both leave the writing to your team.
Every tool on this list changes something. Fewer check afterwards. AI answers vary from run to run, so a change you never re-measure is a change you cannot attribute, and a page you never re-measure can decay without anyone noticing.
Prefer runs the whole loop, and Prefer Managed runs it for you, including the off-page half, with a 90-day guarantee defined in measurable visibility terms rather than a promise about any single answer. Writesonic documents a re-measure at day 14 and day 28. The other seven track a trend and leave the attribution to you.
Decide what you want changed, then who does it. If you want pages rewritten, drafted, published and proven at a published price, run the free Prefer audit and start from your own losing answers. If one seat has to cover tracking and writing, Writesonic. If the constraint is hundreds of pages, AirOps. If you want to prove the category for free and will run the agents, AthenaHQ. If you are inside HubSpot, HubSpot AEO is the cheapest recommendation layer you can add. For the monitoring side of the category, our best AI visibility tools roundup ranks the trackers; for the SEO-first content graders, best AI SEO tools; and the AI search optimization guide explains the work itself before you buy a tool for it.
The questions buyers ask next.
AI search optimization is the work of getting your brand cited and recommended in AI answers from ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google's AI surfaces. Prefer's practice guide splits it into on-page work (answer-first structure, terms, facts, schema), off-page work (presence on the sources engines cite) and technical work (crawler access). A tool earns the label by doing some of that work, not by reporting on it.
Read the practice guide →Prefer, on the rubric printed on this page (our product, disclosed): it rewrites pages, drafts new ones, publishes to your CMS and re-measures, from $24 a month. Writesonic is the lean all-in-one, AirOps the content engine at volume, AthenaHQ the free start.
SEO wins a ranking; AI search optimization wins a citation inside a generated answer. Prefer scores a page on both because they are different tests: a page can rank first and never be quoted. Answer-first structure, verifiable facts and third-party presence matter more for citations; keywords and links matter more for rankings.
Read GEO vs SEO →No. Prefer does not promise a place in any answer; it shows the variance and re-runs the prompts after each change. AI answers vary run to run, so a tool can raise the odds and measure the result, not promise a slot. A vendor guaranteeing a specific answer is a red flag on this page.
Prefer (WordPress, Webflow, Contentful), AthenaHQ (Shopify, Webflow, Wix, Framer, WordPress, Payload), PromptWatch (Webflow, WordPress, Framer), AirOps (Workflows publish to your CMS) and Profound (Agents publish approved content to your existing CMS). HubSpot AEO works inside HubSpot; Qwairy and Scrunch do not list CMS publishing.
See how Prefer drafts and publishes →Not quite, and Prefer is both in one product. An AI visibility tool measures where you appear; an AI search optimization tool changes pages so you appear more. Many trackers have added agents, so check the capability table for what a given product actually does to a site.
See the AI visibility roundup →Questions
Prefer is our pick, and our product, so weigh that: it scores and rewrites your existing pages, drafts new ones from sourced facts, publishes to WordPress, Webflow and Contentful, and re-runs the affected prompts to show whether the citation moved, from $24 a month. For a lean team that wants tracking plus a writer in one seat, Writesonic. For content at real volume, AirOps. For a free start with a publishing agent, AthenaHQ. Every tool on this list does something to your site; tools that only watch are on our AI visibility list instead.
AI search optimization is the work of getting your brand cited and recommended in AI answers from ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and AI Mode. Prefer's practice guide breaks it into three kinds of work: on-page (answer-first structure, the terms and facts engines lift, schema), off-page (presence on the listicles, review sites and communities engines cite) and technical (crawler access, llms.txt). An AI search optimization tool is one that does some of that work, not one that only reports on it.
SEO wins a ranking on a results page; AI search optimization wins a citation inside a generated answer, and the two reward different things. Prefer scores every page on both, one score for search engines and one for answer engines, because a page can rank well and never be quoted. AI search optimization leans harder on answer-first structure, verifiable facts, entity consistency and third-party presence, while SEO leans on keywords, links and crawlability. Our GEO vs SEO explainer covers the overlap and the differences in detail.
No, and a tool that promises one is a red flag. Prefer does not promise a place in any answer; it promises honest measurement, the best-known playbook, and a re-run of the prompts after every change so you see whether it worked, with variance shown. AI engines answer the same question differently on different days, so any tool can only raise the odds and measure the result. Prefer Managed carries a 90-day AI-citation-visibility guarantee that is defined in measurable terms, which is different from guaranteeing a specific answer.
Most only track, which is why they are not on this list. Prefer is built to do both: the same product that tracks five engines rewrites and drafts the pages and re-measures. Among the others here, Profound, AthenaHQ, AirOps and PromptWatch also draft or publish content; HubSpot AEO and Scrunch AI stop at recommendations or audits. Our best AI visibility tools roundup covers the monitoring side, including the tools that measure well but do not act.
Prefer starts at $24 a month with 15 AI articles included and a 7-day free trial, the lowest published entry on this list. HubSpot AEO is $50 a month for recommendations only, Qwairy $89 for briefs and diagnostics on a credit pool, PromptWatch $95 with articles from $245, Writesonic about $79 (not yet a rendered check), Scrunch AI $250 for audits, and AthenaHQ is free to start with a $295 paid step. AirOps and Profound publish no brand price; both are quoted after a free start or trial (checked on the dates in the sources list).
Only if your bottleneck is ranking on Google rather than being cited by AI. Prefer's Optimise Content grades a page for answer engines and search engines at once, so for AI search you do not need a second grader. Surfer, Clearscope and Frase have added AI prompt tracking to their plans, but their core is SERP-driven briefs and content scores, which is why they sit on our AI SEO tools list rather than here.
References
How to choose
If you have writers waiting for direction, a recommendation layer (HubSpot AEO, Scrunch) or briefs (Qwairy) may be all you need. If you do not, buy a tool that rewrites and drafts: Prefer, Writesonic, AirOps, AthenaHQ, PromptWatch or Profound.
A handful of money pages and a steady stream of answer pages is Prefer's shape (15 articles on the entry plan, more above). Hundreds of pages a month is AirOps' shape. In between, Writesonic and PromptWatch meter articles per tier.
If nobody on your team will pitch listicles, review sites and communities, choose a tool that does it: Prefer Managed earns it, AirOps Offsite pays for placements. Otherwise pick any tool here and keep off-page as an internal job.
If you report to someone, yes. Prefer re-runs the affected prompts after every action and records a win or a miss; Writesonic reports lift at day 14 and day 28. The rest give you a trend line to interpret.
Under $100 a month with work included: Prefer from $24, Qwairy $89, PromptWatch $95 (articles from $245). Free to start: AthenaHQ, AirOps, Qwairy's one-time credits. Quoted: Profound and AirOps beyond the free start.
Keep going
See how answer engines describe your brand today, and where the openings are to outpace the competition.
5 cookies across three groups. Necessary ones stay on. Change the rest any time from the footer.
Sign-in, security, and remembering this choice. The site does not work without them.
Anonymous page and report usage so we can see what to improve. Nothing is tied to you.
Lets us credit the partner who sent you, so they are paid for the referral, and measure which campaigns bring people here. One cookie, no ad profiling.
