8 best AI visibility analytics tools in 2026, compared by fit and cost

Your rank tracker says traffic is stable. Meanwhile, half your sales calls open with some version of "I asked ChatGPT and your name came up." That gap between what traditional analytics show and how buyers actually discover you is exactly why AI visibility analytics tools now exist as their own category.

This is a buyer's guide for teams comparing those tools in 2026. It covers eight platforms that monitor how your brand appears inside AI answer engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews, ranked by how well they cover major engines, analyze citations and sources, benchmark competitors, and connect insights to work you can actually ship. It is written for B2B SaaS marketing teams, content leads, and agencies who need to defend a budget line for this, not just watch a dashboard.

Here is what you will get:

• A quick comparison table with starting prices, engine coverage, and the biggest limitation of each tool
• Detailed breakdowns of what each platform measures best, who it fits, and where it falls short
• A clear view of the category's weak spot: most tools tell you where you are missing, then stop

How to choose an AI visibility analytics tool

Most of these tools look identical on a landing page. The real differences show up in engine coverage, how they sample prompts, and whether the insight ever turns into a published change. Use the table for a shortlist, then read the criteria below before you book demos.

Quick comparison of the tools in this list

What AI visibility analytics tools measure that rank trackers miss

Roughly 37% of user searches now begin inside AI systems rather than a traditional search engine. That shift moves the decisive moment from a results page you can rank on to an answer you either get cited in or you do not.

The GEO versus SEO distinction is simpler than the discourse suggests. SEO measures position; generative engine optimization measures whether a model pulls you into its answer, how it describes you, and which sources it trusts to do it.

• Mentions and citations: how often your brand appears, and which URLs the model actually links.
• Source analysis: the third-party pages, listicles, and forums feeding the answer, which are often not yours.
• Sentiment and associations: whether you are framed as the leader, the cheap option, or an afterthought.
• Share of voice: your citation rate against named competitors for the same prompt set.

The criteria behind this list

• AI platform coverage: how many answer engines are tracked, and which ones sit behind higher tiers.
• Citation and source analysis: whether the tool shows why you were cited, not just that you were.
• Competitor benchmarking: prompt-level comparison against a defined competitive set.
• Data quality and methodology: clarity on sampling, refresh frequency, and export depth.
• Workflow connection: whether findings route into SEO, content, or publishing systems.
• Pricing clarity: transparent tiers and limits that match your team size.

The category's biggest weakness: monitoring without remediation

With classic SEO, attribution was solved. Search Console told you the query, the page, and the click. AI-assisted discovery does not work that way: it creeps in as direct traffic and gets missed, which is why "how did you hear about us?" on a signup form is quietly becoming one of the most honest data points you own.

• Most tools show you the gap in AI answers, then hand the problem back to you.
• Publishing more template-driven content does not reliably win durable citations; it just adds pages nobody cites.
• The useful tools either close the gap directly or plug cleanly into a differentiated content workflow.

1. Roman

Roman is an AI visibility and SEO platform built for teams that want tracking and remediation in one system. It monitors brand mentions and citations across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews, then feeds those gaps into keyword planning, SEO audits, article generation, and direct publishing to Sanity, Prismic, Webflow, or Framer. The differentiator is the front end of the workflow: onboarding crawls your site, identifies competitors, and runs a short interview to map your positioning, refusals, and demo moments before anything gets written. Every draft requires a defensible thesis, and paragraph-level source tracking removes unsourced claims during optimization.

What it measures best

• Tracks mentions and citations across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews.
• Reports visibility score, share of voice, and competitive benchmarking rather than isolated prompt snapshots.
• Connects AI visibility data to SEO audits, keyword planning, content refreshes, and multi-CMS publishing.
• Runs scheduled content refreshes so pages cited today do not decay quietly six months from now.

Best fit

• Best for B2B SaaS teams that want one system for tracking, writing, publishing, and improving AI search visibility.
• Strong fit for lean marketing teams that need automation without giving up brand voice or source quality.
• Useful when your bottleneck is fixing citation gaps fast, not producing another report about them.

Main trade-offs

• Broader than a pure monitoring tool, so it is more platform than you need if you only want lightweight tracking.
• The thesis-driven workflow is intentionally opinionated and will block generic, high-volume output by design.
• It deliberately skips real-time content scoring and NLP grading, which some buyers expect from traditional optimization tools.

Pricing and buying notes

• Core starts at $199 per month and Growth at $499 per month, with Managed on custom pricing.
• Yearly billing includes two months free; limits vary by products tracked, article volume, prompts, and seats.
• Verify whether you need Google AI Overview coverage, Search Console integration, or Claude add-ons, since these differ by tier.

2. Profound

Profound is the enterprise reference point in this category. It focuses on deep monitoring across major answer engines, with the reporting structure larger organizations need when AI visibility becomes a formal program with named owners. Coverage scales with tier: the entry plan is effectively ChatGPT-only with a modest prompt allowance, while broader multi-engine tracking sits higher up the stack. Independent roundups consistently describe it as comprehensive but expensive, which is a fair summary of the trade.

What it measures best

• Enterprise-grade monitoring and benchmarking across major AI answer engines.
• Reporting depth that holds up in front of executives and across multiple accounts or brands.
• Useful when stakeholder communication matters as much as raw prompt tracking.

Best fit

• Best for enterprise brands and agencies that need reporting depth and cross-team visibility.
• A good fit when AI visibility has graduated from experiment to funded program.

Main trade-offs

• Heavier and more expensive than most small teams need once you move past the entry tier.
• Focused on monitoring and analysis rather than producing the content changes that close gaps.
• The sales-led motion at higher tiers slows evaluation if you prefer to self-serve.

Pricing and buying notes

• Self-serve tiers start around $99 per month with limited engine coverage; a mid tier lands near $399 per month, and full enterprise coverage is custom-quoted and reported to start well into four figures monthly.
• Ask about prompt limits, engine access by tier, seats, and minimum contract terms before signing.
• Run a paid pilot if your real question is data quality rather than feature breadth.

3. Semrush AI Toolkit

Semrush's AI Toolkit adds AI visibility monitoring to a platform most SEO teams already have open. Its value is contextual: you can look at traditional keyword performance and AI answer visibility in one place, using competitor sets and domains you have already configured. For teams that need AI search data to sit inside existing search operations rather than in a new tab, that consolidation is the whole argument.

What it measures best

• Combines AI visibility monitoring with the broader SEO data environment your team already uses.
• Makes side-by-side comparison of traditional rankings and AI search visibility straightforward.
• Reuses existing domains and competitor sets, which shortens setup time considerably.

Best fit

• Best for teams already invested in Semrush who want AI visibility without replacing their main SEO platform.
• A practical choice for marketers who prefer one familiar interface over a new specialist tool.

Main trade-offs

• The AI layer feels like a module inside a larger suite rather than a purpose-built AI visibility workflow.
• You still need separate content and publishing systems to act on what the analytics uncover.
• Costs compound if AI visibility is one small piece of a much larger subscription.

Pricing and buying notes

• The toolkit is sold as a premium add-on at roughly $99 per month per domain, billed annually.
• Per-domain pricing gets expensive fast for multi-brand portfolios, so model your real domain count first.
• Confirm whether the features you saw in a demo are bundled at your plan level or metered separately.

4. Peec AI

Peec AI is a specialist built around prompt tracking and citation analysis, with a structure that suits multi-client work. You define prompt sets, then see which brands and which source URLs get cited for each one over time. Reviews of the category commonly credit it with smart monitoring suggestions while noting its analysis layer is thinner than enterprise platforms, which matches its positioning as a focused reporting tool rather than a strategy system.

What it measures best

• Prompt-level citation tracking that shows which sources feed each answer.
• Project-based organization that maps cleanly onto client accounts.
• Movement reporting that makes visibility change easy to present monthly.

Best fit

• Best for agencies, consultants, and teams that need prompt-level citation reporting across multiple projects.
• A good fit when your buying need is proof of visibility movement rather than content execution.

Main trade-offs

• Narrower than a full SEO or content platform.
• You need separate tools to turn insights into briefs, articles, updates, or publishing changes.
• Deeper data analysis is limited compared with enterprise-focused options.

Pricing and buying notes

• Brand plans start at $95 per month, with higher tiers at $245 and $495; agency plans start around $245 per month.
• Annual billing saves roughly 15%, but verify project limits, prompt quotas, and seat rules before standardizing on it.
• Assess whether the reporting depth justifies another standalone subscription in your stack.

5. SE Ranking AI Search Toolkit

SE Ranking's AI Search Toolkit is the most natural bridge for teams already running rank tracking. It monitors visibility across Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity, and lets you benchmark brand mentions and links against up to five competitors. The toolkit breaks into three modules: AI Competitor Research, AI Results Tracker, and AI Source and Coverage Analysis, so you can move from "who is winning this prompt" to "which pages are being cited" without leaving the platform.

What it measures best

• AI competitor research, results tracking, and source and coverage analysis in one toolkit.
• Coverage of Google AI experiences alongside ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity.
• Competitor comparison against a defined set of up to five rivals.

Best fit

• Best for SEO teams that want an easier path from rank tracking into AI visibility tracking.
• Useful when you need competitor comparisons without jumping to enterprise pricing.

Main trade-offs

• Still anchored to a broader SEO platform, so remediation requires separate content systems.
• Interpret score movement carefully, because there is no universal benchmark for good AI visibility yet.
• Less hands-on than all-in-one platforms if you want opinionated workflows for content fixes.

Pricing and buying notes

• Sold as an add-on to Core, Growth, or Enterprise plans, starting around $89 per month for 200 checks, or $71.20 monthly billed annually.
• A 14-day free trial includes up to 20 AI prompts per day and competitive research across three domains.
• Check whether check volumes at your tier cover your full prompt set before committing annually.

6. Scrunch AI

Scrunch AI positions itself around actionable GEO insight rather than raw mention counts. It targets enterprise teams that need interpretation, not just a feed of prompts, and it is frequently grouped with the heavier analytics platforms in category roundups. If AI visibility reporting has to inform executive decisions across brand, product, and search, that depth is the point.

What it measures best

• Analysis oriented toward strategic interpretation, not bare mention tracking.
• Depth that supports enterprise search and brand decisions with multiple stakeholders.
• Reporting suited to teams treating AI visibility as a standing analytics program.

Best fit

• Best for enterprise teams that need more than a lightweight dashboard.
• A good fit when AI search visibility is a high-priority program with multiple owners.

Main trade-offs

• Pricing and scope are heavy for small SaaS teams or first-time buyers.
• Even with stronger insight, you still need a separate system for writing, updating, and publishing fixes.
• Not the right pick if your main need is affordable self-serve monitoring.

Pricing and buying notes

• Core starts at $250 per month with a 7-day free trial; an agency plan starts at $500 per month, with extra seats billed separately.
• Verify onboarding requirements, contract terms, and what counts as standard versus enterprise-only functionality.
• It makes most sense when analytics depth matters more than low-cost experimentation.

7. Otterly.AI

Otterly.AI is the easiest on-ramp in this list. It focuses on brand mention monitoring, sentiment, and link tracking across AI search, with setup simple enough that a solo marketer can be running prompt checks the same afternoon. Category reviews consistently describe it as affordable and straightforward while noting it lacks some advanced features, which is a reasonable trade at its price point.

What it measures best

• Brand mention and sentiment monitoring in AI answers, presented simply.
• Fast setup and approachable reporting for teams without a dedicated analyst.
• Prompt-level checks without committing to a large, multi-workflow platform.

Best fit

• Best for small teams, solo marketers, and first-time buyers of AI visibility software.
• A strong entry point when your immediate need is monitoring, not a full SEO and content stack.

Main trade-offs

• Analytics depth is lighter than enterprise-focused tools.
• You will outgrow it if you need richer competitor analysis, agency reporting, or integrated remediation.
• Less suited to complex multi-brand operations.

Pricing and buying notes

• Lite starts at $29 per month for 15 prompts; Standard is $189 per month for 100 prompts and Premium $489 for 400.
• A 7-day free trial with 50 prompts and no credit card makes it the fastest tool here to test.
• The low entry price buys very few prompts, so map your prompt set before assuming Lite is enough.

8. Rankscale

Rankscale competes on coverage breadth and price. It supports 17 or more AI engines with drill-down reporting, which appeals to buyers who want to see the wider answer-engine landscape rather than just the big three. It is a pure analytics layer, best used alongside SEO and content tools you already run.

What it measures best

• Drill-down reporting across an unusually broad set of AI engines.
• Coverage comparison across emerging answer engines, not just ChatGPT and Gemini.
• Tracking breadth at a price point well below enterprise platforms.

Best fit

• Best for budget-conscious teams that want broad tracking coverage first.
• A good fit when you already have SEO and content tools and only need the analytics layer.

Main trade-offs

• Lower-cost tools trade away workflow depth, integrations, and richer analysis layers.
• You will need separate systems for content remediation, publishing, and SEO operations.
• Because engine breadth is the headline, validate sampling methodology before buying on coverage alone.

Pricing and buying notes

• Essentials starts at €20 per month, with Pro at €99, Growth at €385, and Enterprise at €780, on a credit-based model.
• Credit consumption is the real cost driver, so estimate prompt volume before picking a tier.
• Use it as a low-cost test when your first question is coverage, not execution.

9. AthenaHQ

AthenaHQ is an AI-native brand intelligence platform built for enterprise teams that need to understand how large language models perceive and describe their brand. It goes beyond mention counting to analyze the associations, attributes, and competitive framing that models apply when a buyer asks a category question. The focus is on brand accuracy inside AI answers, not just citation frequency, which makes it a different kind of tool from the prompt-tracking specialists in this list.

What it measures best

• How AI models characterize your brand, including attributes, associations, and competitive framing.
• Brand accuracy across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Claude, not just whether you appear.
• Sentiment and positioning drift over time as models update their training or retrieval sources.

Best fit

• Best for enterprise brand and communications teams that need to manage how AI models describe them, not just track mentions.
• A strong fit when brand accuracy in AI answers is a board-level concern, not just a marketing metric.

Main trade-offs

• No self-serve tier; evaluation requires a sales conversation, which slows down smaller teams.
• Focused on brand intelligence rather than the full SEO and content workflow needed to fix gaps.
• Overkill for teams whose primary need is prompt-level citation tracking rather than brand perception analysis.

Pricing and buying notes

• Custom pricing only; no published tiers.
• Budget conversations typically start at enterprise levels, so confirm scope and seat requirements early.
• Best evaluated when you have a specific brand accuracy problem to test against, not as a general monitoring trial.

10. LLMClicks

LLMClicks takes a different angle from most tools in this category. Instead of tracking brand mentions inside AI answers, it focuses on measuring the traffic that actually arrives from AI referrals. It instruments your site to detect and attribute visits that originate from AI-generated links, giving you a cleaner read on which AI engines are sending real clicks rather than just citing your name in an answer nobody acts on.

What it measures best

• AI referral traffic attribution, connecting AI citations to actual site visits.
• Which specific AI engines and prompts drive clicks, not just mentions.
• Traffic trends from AI sources over time, separated from direct and organic channels.

Best fit

• Best for teams whose primary question is "how much traffic is AI actually sending us?" rather than "how often are we mentioned?"
• A useful complement to mention-tracking tools when you need to connect visibility data to business outcomes.

Main trade-offs

• Narrow scope: it measures AI-driven traffic, not the full picture of brand mentions, sentiment, or share of voice.
• Does not tell you why you are or are not being cited, only whether the citation drove a visit.
• Most useful as a supplementary layer alongside a broader AI visibility tracking tool.

Pricing and buying notes

• A free tier is available, making it one of the lowest-risk tools in this list to test.
• Paid tiers unlock higher traffic volumes and more granular attribution data; verify limits before assuming the free tier covers your site's scale.
• Works best when paired with a mention-tracking tool rather than used as a standalone AI visibility solution.

11. OmniSEO

OmniSEO positions itself at the intersection of traditional SEO and AI search visibility, tracking how brands appear across both conventional results pages and AI-generated answers. For teams that want a single platform to bridge the two without committing to a full enterprise suite, it offers a practical middle ground. The focus is on monitoring and competitive benchmarking rather than content execution.

What it measures best

• Brand visibility across both traditional search results and AI answer engines in one dashboard.
• Competitive benchmarking that spans SEO rankings and AI citation share simultaneously.
• Prompt-level tracking with share-of-voice reporting against a defined competitor set.

Best fit

• Best for SEO teams that want AI visibility data without switching to a specialist-only platform.
• A practical choice when your reporting needs to cover both traditional and AI search in one view.

Main trade-offs

• The hybrid focus means it goes less deep on AI-specific analytics than purpose-built AI visibility tools.
• Remediation still requires separate content and publishing systems.
• Verify engine coverage depth at your tier before assuming parity with specialist tools.

Pricing and buying notes

• Entry plans start around $49 per month; higher tiers unlock more prompts, competitors, and engines.
• Map your prompt volume and competitor set before choosing a tier, since both drive cost.
• A free trial or limited free check is worth running to validate data quality before committing.

12. Topify

Topify focuses on prompt ranking and share-of-voice reporting across the major AI answer engines. It is built around the idea that AI search has its own version of a rank, and teams should be able to track movement in that rank the same way they track keyword positions. The interface is designed to be familiar to anyone who has used a traditional rank tracker, which lowers the learning curve for SEO teams making the transition.

What it measures best

• Prompt-level ranking and share-of-voice movement across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini.
• Trend reporting that shows visibility changes over time in a format SEO teams already understand.
• Competitive share-of-voice comparison for a defined prompt set and competitor list.

Best fit

• Best for SEO teams that want AI visibility data presented in a rank-tracker-style interface.
• A good fit when your stakeholders already understand rank movement and you need AI visibility to speak the same language.

Main trade-offs

• No content execution layer; you still need separate tools to act on what the data shows.
• The rank-tracker framing can oversimplify AI visibility, which is more volatile and context-dependent than traditional positions.
• Source and citation analysis is lighter than enterprise-focused platforms.

Pricing and buying notes

• Plans start around $49 per month; higher tiers add more prompts, competitors, and engines.
• Prompt volume is the main cost driver, so estimate your tracking set before picking a tier.
• A trial period is available; use it to validate whether the rank-style reporting maps to how your team actually makes decisions.

13. Ahrefs AI Visibility

Ahrefs added AI visibility tracking to its platform as the category matured, giving existing subscribers a way to monitor Google AI Overviews alongside traditional rank data without adding a new tool. For teams already deep in the Ahrefs ecosystem, the consolidation argument is straightforward. The limitation is engine breadth: coverage is currently weighted toward Google AI Overviews, with expansion ongoing, so it is not yet a full substitute for specialist AI visibility tools if you need parity across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini.

What it measures best

• Google AI Overview visibility alongside traditional Ahrefs rank and backlink data.
• Integration with existing Ahrefs keyword and competitor sets, which shortens setup considerably.
• Trend data that sits inside the same reporting environment as your broader SEO program.

Best fit

• Best for teams already paying for Ahrefs who want AI visibility data without adding another subscription.
• A practical starting point when Google AI Overviews is your primary concern and ChatGPT or Perplexity tracking can wait.

Main trade-offs

• Engine coverage is narrower than specialist AI visibility tools, particularly for conversational AI engines.
• The AI visibility layer is an addition to an SEO platform, not a purpose-built GEO workflow.
• Remediation still requires separate content systems; Ahrefs does not generate or publish content.

Pricing and buying notes

• AI visibility features are included in standard Ahrefs plans, which start at $129 per month.
• If you are not already an Ahrefs subscriber, buying it solely for AI visibility is hard to justify against specialist tools at lower price points.
• Check the current engine coverage list before assuming it matches your tracking requirements; the feature set is actively expanding.

14. Conductor

Conductor is an enterprise content intelligence platform that added AI search visibility tracking as the category emerged. It is best known for its organic marketing suite, which combines content guidance, SEO analytics, and now AI answer engine monitoring for large organizations. If your team already runs Conductor for content operations, the AI visibility layer adds without requiring a new vendor relationship. For teams evaluating it fresh, the entry bar is high: it is built for enterprise programs with dedicated resources, not lean SaaS teams.

What it measures best

• AI search visibility alongside a broader enterprise content intelligence and SEO program.
• Google AI Overview tracking integrated with content performance and organic search data.
• Reporting depth suited to large organizations with multiple stakeholders across brand, SEO, and content.

Best fit

• Best for enterprise teams already using Conductor for content operations who want AI visibility without a new platform.
• A reasonable fit when AI search visibility needs to sit inside a broader content intelligence program with executive reporting.

Main trade-offs

• Heavy onboarding investment and enterprise pricing make it impractical for SMB or growth-stage teams.
• AI visibility is one module inside a large suite; specialist tools go deeper on prompt tracking and citation analysis.
• Sales-led evaluation process adds time if you need to move quickly.

Pricing and buying notes

• Custom enterprise pricing only; no published tiers.
• Expect a structured sales and onboarding process; this is not a self-serve tool.
• Only worth evaluating if you are already in the Conductor ecosystem or running a formal enterprise content program that justifies the investment.

15. BrightEdge

BrightEdge is one of the longest-standing enterprise SEO platforms and has extended its data cube to include AI search visibility tracking as the category has grown. It monitors how brands appear in AI-generated answers alongside traditional organic performance, with the reporting infrastructure large organizations expect. Like Conductor, it is built for enterprise programs with dedicated SEO teams, not lean marketing operations looking for a fast setup.

What it measures best

• AI search visibility integrated with a mature enterprise SEO data environment.
• Cross-channel reporting that connects AI answer engine presence to organic traffic and content performance.
• Competitive benchmarking at scale, with the historical data depth that only older platforms carry.

Best fit

• Best for large enterprise SEO teams that already run BrightEdge and want AI visibility without switching platforms.
• A strong fit when AI search tracking needs to sit inside a formal SEO program with executive dashboards and multi-team access.

Main trade-offs

• Enterprise pricing and onboarding requirements put it out of reach for most growth-stage teams.
• AI visibility is an extension of an SEO platform, not a purpose-built GEO tool, so prompt tracking and citation analysis depth lag behind specialists.
• No content generation or autonomous publishing; remediation still requires a separate workflow.

Pricing and buying notes

• Custom enterprise pricing; no self-serve tiers.
• Minimum contracts and onboarding commitments apply; confirm scope before entering a sales process.
• Only evaluate it if you are already in the BrightEdge ecosystem or running a program that justifies full enterprise SEO platform costs.

Choosing the right AI visibility analytics tool

The honest takeaway after comparing these platforms: dashboard count is not the differentiator. Almost every tool here will tell you that a competitor gets cited for your best prompts. Very few help you do anything about it.

Pick based on where your bottleneck actually sits.

• Best all-in-one: Roman, for teams that want tracking, content generation, and publishing in one workflow.
• Best enterprise analytics: Profound, for funded programs with heavy reporting requirements.
• Best enterprise content intelligence: Conductor and BrightEdge, for large organizations already running those platforms.
• Best for existing SEO stacks: Semrush AI Toolkit, SE Ranking AI Search Toolkit, and Ahrefs AI Visibility.
• Best for agencies: Peec AI, for prompt-level citation reporting across clients.
• Best for brand perception intelligence: AthenaHQ, when the question is how AI models describe you, not just whether they cite you.
• Best for AI traffic attribution: LLMClicks, when you need to connect AI citations to actual site visits.
• Best budget option: Rankscale and OmniSEO, with Otterly.AI as the simplest starting point.

If measurement is your gap, buy a tracker. If execution is your gap, buy the system that closes it.

FAQs about AI visibility analytics tools

What are AI visibility analytics tools?

They are platforms that track how often and how favorably your brand appears inside AI answer engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews. They measure mentions, citations, cited sources, sentiment, and share of voice against competitors for a defined prompt set.

How is AI visibility tracking different from rank tracking?

Rank tracking measures your position on a results page. AI visibility tracking measures whether a model includes you in its answer, which sources it used to build that answer, and how it describes you. You can rank first and still be invisible in the generated response.

Why does AI search traffic not show up in analytics?

Most AI-assisted discovery arrives without clean referral data and lands in direct traffic. There is no equivalent of Search Console for ChatGPT. Adding a "how did you hear about us?" field to signup forms is currently one of the most reliable ways to capture it.

How many prompts should you track?

Start with 25 to 50 prompts that mirror real buyer questions, including category terms, comparison queries, and problem-first phrasing. Prompt volume is the main pricing lever across these tools, so size your set before choosing a tier.

Which AI engines should a tool cover in 2026?

At minimum ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews. Broader coverage matters if your audience uses niche assistants, but validate the sampling method before paying for breadth alone. Tools like Rankscale cover 17 or more engines, while platforms like Ahrefs currently weight toward Google AI Overviews; match engine coverage to where your buyers actually search.

Can these tools fix AI visibility gaps or only report them?

Most only report. Closing a gap means earning citations through differentiated content, updated pages, and third-party sources, which requires either a separate content workflow or a platform like Roman that carries the fix through to publish.