SEOAIO vs Seobrainy
Seobrainy markets an AI SEO automation platform: a directory of about 30 tool pages, campaign products, and tiered subscriptions sold through free signup and single-use discount codes. Its public surfaces include a large JavaScript bundle and two unauthenticated APIs, which is where most observations below come from.
Every claim about Seobrainy below is what we observed on 2026-08-21. Read on 2026-08-21: their homepage HTML, full JS bundle, sitemap, and the two unauthenticated plans and campaign-types APIs. No account was created. A prior read on 2026-08-01 provides the three-week comparison points. Products change after an observation date; if something here is out of date, tell us and we will correct it.
Where Seobrainy genuinely wins
- The discount-code rail is genuinely good funnel engineering: single-use codes with real expiry dates that survive signup all the way into the billing call. A true expiry is a fact, not manufactured urgency, and it gives paid social attribution a spine. We have nothing equivalent shipped.
- A $1.00 first month is an easier yes for a cold ad click than our $99 entry price, and their funnel sustained at least three weeks of continuous paid social spend on it.
- Roughly 30 indexed tool pages is a wider free-tool surface than most of the category carries, ours included on several categories they cover.
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 | Seobrainy |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | Their live plans API returned Starter at $1.00 monthly and $99.00 annual on 2026-08-21, while the shipped bundle hardcodes fallback prices of $15, $29 and $79 and computes annual as monthly times 0.8 times 12. Their Growth plan (tier 3) costs $24.99 while Scale (tier 2) costs $49.99, so the higher tier is the cheaper plan. |
| 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. | Their tools take a "Target AI Engine" dropdown (All, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity) that feeds a form field named target_ai; zero engine API calls were found in the bundle, observed 2026-08-21. An engine name offered as a parameter is not an engine measurement. |
| One set of claims per product | Counts and prices interpolate from single source-of-truth constants, so two surfaces cannot state two different numbers for the same fact. | One shipped bundle carries "50,000+ marketers", "thousands of businesses" and "over 50,000 businesses" as three different customer counts, plus a 14 day and a 30 day version of the same guarantee, observed 2026-08-21. |
| 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. | Signup is free but gated by hand, observed 2026-08-21: "An administrator needs to approve your account" before login, and the advertised tools sit behind that approval. |
| Features reachable on a sellable plan | Pricing copy derives from the same plan constants that gate the product, so a tier cannot advertise a feature its buyers cannot reach without the build failing. | Their campaign-types API lists three campaign products requiring minimum tier rank 4 while the plans API's highest purchasable tier is rank 3, observed 2026-08-21. Campaigns sit in their top navigation. |
| Who built the product | One name, one domain, a named legal entity, and a public methodology with a changelog. | Their robots sitemap points every URL at a different domain, aiseo.digitalsps.online, while the brand serves from seobrainy.com, observed 2026-08-21. That pattern usually indicates a rebranded white label skin. |
| 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. | No engine measurement was observed at all, so there is no measured series to trend, observed 2026-08-21. Reporting exists inside the gated product, which we could not review without an approved account. |
The question-mark glyph marks a claim we could not confirm on Seobrainy’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 Seobrainy 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.
Seobrainy is a funnel with a product attached; the observations above are about which of the two got the engineering hours. If a dollar trial is what you want, theirs is real. If the thing you are paying for is measurement, ask each vendor the same question: show me one engine answer you collected about my site, and the date you collected it. Our product is built to answer it; nothing we could reach on theirs was.
Run a free measured audit, no signup