SEOAIO vs Cruelx
Cruelx sells a one time AI visibility scan at $19.99 and an AI website audit, with white label agency subscriptions on top. The scan asks 15 buyer questions across 6 engines, 3 runs each, and stores the answer transcripts as evidence.
Every claim about Cruelx below is what we observed on 2026-08-21. Read on 2026-08-21: their ad landing page, homepage, pricing, sample report pages, free tools and sitemap, plus review searches on the major platforms. Products change after an observation date; if something here is out of date, tell us and we will correct it.
Where Cruelx genuinely wins
- The $19.99 one time price point is the impulse tier this category needed, and they built it first. A cold click can buy a real scan without committing to a subscription, and our own /deep-scan exists because that rung of the ladder works.
- Their arithmetic hook compresses rigor into one line a stranger can verify on sight: "15 questions x 6 engines x 3 runs = 270 total queries". Our evidence story runs deeper and communicates worse.
- They cover six engines to our four measured, including Gemini standalone, which we mark NOT MEASURED rather than cover.
- Public sample report pages do the selling before checkout, and the free tool explains its own cost cap out loud. Both are honest funnel mechanics worth respecting.
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 | Cruelx |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | Public and clear, observed 2026-08-21: $19.99 one time scan, $8.99 full audit report, subscriptions at $25, $75 and $149 per month, and scan packs whose credits never expire. |
| Engines measured, method disclosed | 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. Gemini renders as NOT MEASURED here until its adapter genuinely runs, which is a smaller list than theirs and we say so. | Six engines named, with the sampling stated as arithmetic on the landing page, observed 2026-08-21: "15 questions x 6 engines x 3 runs = 270 total queries". No published confidence intervals were found around the resulting scores. |
| Evidence behind each number | Every reported share carries its sample count and 95% Wilson interval, and opens to the stored verbatim answers behind it. | Genuinely evidence-forward, observed 2026-08-21: full transcripts stored, 18 verbatim excerpts in the public sample, and fix recommendations tagged "Proven lever" or "Directional evidence". |
| Free tier gating | The free audit runs with no account, no email and no card, and the full result renders on the page, failures included. | A free checker with no account and no email, capped at 2 live samples per visitor per day, with the cap explained by cost on the page itself, observed 2026-08-21. |
| Time series and monitoring | Scheduled re-measurement with stored history. Run-over-run movement must clear a significance test before it reports as a change; noise reports as cannot-tell-yet. | The scan is a one time snapshot, observed 2026-08-21: no re-run cadence, trend line or monitoring product was found on the surfaces reviewed. Scan packs sell repeat snapshots as credits, not as a schedule. |
| Checking what AI says is true | Answer Accuracy grades stored engine answers against facts you declare yourself, so a wrong claim about your business is a finding, not a footnote. | They flag "ghost citations", answers citing the site without naming the business, observed 2026-08-21. No feature checking whether an engine's statements about a business are factually true was found. |
| API and MCP | A documented API and an MCP server ship today, at /api-docs and /mcp. | No API, MCP server or webhooks were found anywhere on the surfaces reviewed, observed 2026-08-21. Absence on public pages is not proof of absence in the product. |
The question-mark glyph marks a claim we could not confirm on Cruelx’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 Cruelx 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.
Cruelx is a cheap, evidence-flavored snapshot with a well built impulse funnel. The difference is what happens after the first scan: a snapshot cannot tell you whether anything you changed worked, and a trend line built from scheduled, stored, significance-tested measurement can. Buy them to see where you stand today for twenty dollars; buy us when the question becomes whether it is moving.
Run a free measured audit, no signup