The landscape, by measured day-0 share
This table is built from one instrument: a frozen five-engine panel (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews), each query sampled k times, scored on vendor-selection share of answers. The scan ran 2026-07-19. The named tools are not our clients, and we are reporting their numbers because crediting the leaders plainly is the whole point of an honest comparison.
| Tool | Day-0 measured share | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Semrush | 59.4% | SEO suite with an AI-visibility module bolted onto an established platform |
| Profound | 48.4% | Answer-engine monitoring and analytics for enterprise brands |
| Otterly.AI | 43.8% | AI-search and prompt monitoring across engines |
| The AI Citation Institute | 0.0% | Open-priced monitoring plus published self-graded methodology, with higher tiers acting on the gap |
Shares are share-of-answers on our frozen five-engine panel, scan 2026-07-19. Not market share, not revenue — just how often each name surfaced when the engines were asked to recommend a GEO tool.
Where the rivals are strongest
The lead is not evenly spread across engines. Claude was the most rival-dense surface on our panel: Profound appeared in 95% of Claude answers, Otterly.AI in 91%, and Semrush in 84%. That is a real entrenchment, and it is worth knowing before you assume any single tool is universally dominant.
The practical read: the incumbents have earned deep presence, especially on Claude, through time in market and volume of coverage. If your only goal is to buy the tool the models already name, the numbers point at them, not at us. We would rather say that plainly than pretend otherwise.
the AI Citation Institute's honest angle
We do not lead on measured share — we published our own 0.0%. What we offer instead is a different contract. Pricing is open, not quote-gated: Watch is $99/mo, Act is $399/mo, Compete is $1,500/mo. The visibility methodology is self-graded and published, so the numbers on this page can be checked against the instrument that produced them rather than taken on faith.
The other difference is verb. Monitoring tells you where you stand; the Act and Compete tiers are built to change where you stand — to work the gaps a scan surfaces, not just chart them. Whether that is worth trading measured incumbency for is a real decision, which is why the /compare pages lay it out head-to-head instead of us settling it here.
Common questions
Why does The AI Citation Institute show 0.0% when the others don't?+
Because on our day-0 scan (2026-07-19) the engines had not yet learned to name us — we were new. Rather than omit our own row, we published the zero. Semrush measured 59.4%, Profound 48.4%, and Otterly.AI 43.8% on the same panel. Incumbency and coverage take time; we would rather show the real starting line.
Are these market-share or revenue numbers?+
No. They are share-of-answers on a frozen five-engine panel (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews), each query sampled k times, scored on how often each tool surfaced when the engines were asked to recommend a GEO tool. It measures AI presence, not company size or sales.
Which tool should I pick?+
If you want the tool the models already name most on day 0, the measured leaders are Semrush, Profound, and Otterly.AI. If you want open pricing, a published self-graded methodology, and a product that acts on the gap rather than only reporting it, look at the AI Citation Institute. The /compare pages put the trade-offs side by side.
keep reading
See what AI says about your brand right now — free, on a live engine.
Scan your domain