SEOAIO vs AI SEO Tracker
AI SEO Tracker sells a $49 one-time AI SEO audit report and two monitoring tiers on top of it, tracking brand visibility across five AI surfaces. It also publishes a 343-company AI visibility leaderboard, and routes agency-scale work to a done-for-you partner from $1,999 per month.
Every claim about AI SEO Tracker below is what we observed on 2026-09-13. Their homepage, /pricing, /how-it-works, robots.txt, sitemap, leaderboard and their whole agent surface were read on 2026-09-12, and every price below was re-fetched from the live /pricing page on 2026-09-13. Both agent-readiness scores come from running our own open check script against each host on 2026-09-12, so that row grades us with the same instrument it grades them with. Products change after an observation date; if something here is out of date, tell us and we will correct it.
Where AI SEO Tracker genuinely wins
- Their skill documents are better structured than ours were. They publish a SKILL.md over HTTP so an agent can fetch the instructions with no package install, plus task-scoped skills, and they give each MCP tool its own indexed documentation page. We rebuilt our own agent surface after reading theirs and said so in the research.
- They state their write surface in one sentence: the only write adds prompts, and it does not send email, add competitors or charge a card. That is a trust claim an agent operator can verify in seconds, and most MCP servers make a reader infer it.
- They ship a machine-readable honest-absence flag and instruct agents never to invent ranks or URLs when data is missing. We believe in that harder than they do and had expressed it worse.
- A $49 one-time report removes the subscription objection at the top of the funnel, and they name the metered unit for it rather than leaving a buyer to guess.
- They publish an honest scope statement in the file agents read: "We do not scan Claude or Grok." Saying what you do not cover is rarer than it should be.
A comparison that concedes nothing is an advertisement. If the rows above are what you need most, they may fit you better than we do.
| What matters | SEOAIO | AI SEO Tracker |
|---|---|---|
| Price transparency | Published on /pricing: $99, $249 and $549 per month at launch, with every metered unit defined on the page, plus a one time Deep Scan at /deep-scan. | Fully public and unusually clear, observed 2026-09-13: a $49 one-time report with no subscription, then Basic at $79 per month and Pro at $199 per month, with agency work routed to a partner from $1,999 per month. Each tier states what it meters, and the $49 report is named in the page title itself. |
| Engines measured | 4 engines measured live: Perplexity, Google AI Mode and AI Overviews, ChatGPT and Claude. The list renders from the same table that gates sampling, and the method is public at /how-we-measure. | Five surfaces claimed, observed 2026-09-13: "ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, and AI Overviews". That is one more than we measure, and the difference is deliberate on our side rather than a gap: we do not ship a Copilot adapter, and we label our Google engine AI Mode and AI Overviews because that is what it samples. We report an engine as measured only when its adapter runs against real API calls. |
| Statistical disclosure | Every reported share carries its sample count and 95% Wilson interval, and opens to the stored verbatim answers behind it. | None found on any surface reviewed, observed 2026-09-13. Their /how-it-works names "prompt rank per engine", "brand mentions vs misses" and a "visibility scorecard" and defines none of them: no sample size, no confidence interval, no run count per prompt. It does not state anywhere that AI answers vary between identical queries, which for a product sampled from non-deterministic engines is the disclosure that matters most. |
| What the entry tier actually meters | The free audit runs with no account, no email and no card, and the full result renders on the page, failures included. | Stated plainly, observed 2026-09-13: the $49 report covers 50 prompts and a 7-day daily scan week for one brand; Basic covers 50 tracked prompts, 250 model responses per month and one brand workspace with owner-only access. Naming the metered unit on the pricing page is better practice than most of this category manages. |
| Ranking other companies | We are absent from every ranking we compute, and we publish no league table of other companies at all. | They publish a 343-company leaderboard, observed 2026-09-13. To their credit they are not on it, which the direct rival we read five days earlier could not say. No rubric, prompt count, run count or date is published for the scores, and no route is given for a ranked company to contest its position. |
| Agent and protocol surface | 13 of 14 checks passing on our own Agent Readiness script, observed 2026-09-13, the one failure being a Web Bot Auth key directory. | 6 of 14 on the same script, observed 2026-09-13: robots.txt names no AI agent, no Content Signals, no llms-full.txt, no agents.md, no markdown negotiation on the homepage, no agent-skills index, no API catalog and no Web Bot Auth. Their MCP server and skill documents are genuinely strong, which is a separate thing from the protocol surface this check probes. |
| Crawler policy | Every AI crawler we ask customers to allow is allowed on our own site, and our Crawler Check prints a per-bot verdict so the policy is inspectable rather than asserted. | Their robots.txt blocks plain Applebot, observed 2026-09-13, which is Apple's search and Siri crawler rather than the Applebot-Extended training opt-out, and also blocks Amazonbot. It additionally blocks every major SEO-tool crawler, which is defensible but means their own backlink profile cannot be independently checked. |
The question-mark glyph marks a claim we could not confirm on AI SEO Tracker’s own surfaces; the cell says where it came from instead.
Check both vendors yourself
We are a vendor in this comparison, which is exactly why you should not take our table on faith. Four checks from our buyer’s guide, each one runnable against AI SEO Tracker and against us, in about ten minutes:
- 1.Does it ask the engines, or grade your markup? A result that returns instantly did not query an AI engine.
- 2.Who actually built the tool? Read the page source; a second brand in the code usually means a licensed skin.
- 3.Who profits from the fixes it recommends? A scanner owned by the company selling the remedy has no version that recommends doing nothing.
- 4.Can you see a real result before creating an account? A vendor confident in the result shows you one.
Our own answers are public: the method behind every number is at /methodology, and what we tell AI crawlers about ourselves is readable at /llms.txt.
AI SEO Tracker is the closest thing in this category to a fair fight, and the comparison is narrower than most on this site. They price clearly, meter honestly, cover one surface we deliberately do not, and write better agent documentation than we did before we read theirs. The difference is what happens to a number once it exists: theirs arrives with no sample size, no interval and no acknowledgement that AI answers vary between identical queries, and their 343-company leaderboard scores other businesses with no published rubric and no way to contest it. If you want the cheapest honest look at where you stand, their $49 report is a real product. If you need to defend a number to someone who will push back on it, ask both of us for the sample size.
Run a free measured audit, no signup