GeoMost "best GEO tools" roundups published this year compare the same five or six monitoring platforms and stop there. That's useful if you already know you want a dashboard. It's less useful if what you actually want is your site fixed. Here's what each major GEO and AEO tool costs, who it's actually built for, and the one job almost none of them do.
What actually counts as a GEO tool in 2026?
Most of what's sold as a GEO tool in 2026 is AI visibility monitoring. It tracks how often ChatGPT, Perplexity, Copilot, or Google's AI Overviews mention your brand across a set of prompts, then reports the trend. Almost none of them generate the fix that changes that number.
That distinction sounds small until you've paid a monthly fee and are still staring at the same citation rate a month later. Monitoring tells you the score. Fixing changes it. That audience keeps growing, which is exactly why interest in these tools keeps climbing: Search Engine Land reported this year that 37% of consumers now start their searches with AI instead of Google (Search Engine Land, 2026).
What does Otterly cost, and who is it for?
Otterly is the budget entry point into GEO monitoring. Its Lite plan starts at $29 a month for 15 prompts on a single workspace, and it tracks ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Copilot out of the box. Standard runs $189 a month for 100 prompts across unlimited workspaces, and Premium runs $489 for 400 prompts, with Claude, Gemini, and Google AI Mode sold as add-ons for $9 to $149 a month rather than included (Stork.AI, 2026).
Otterly pairs its tracking with content briefs and crawlability checks, which nudges it slightly toward the fix side of the category. But the core product is still a monitor, and it suits a solo marketer or small agency piloting the channel rather than a team that needs deep prompt coverage.
What does Peec cost, and who is it for?
Peec sits in the middle of the market, with guided onboarding aimed at SMBs and agencies that don't have an in-house data team. Publicly listed tiers put it roughly between Otterly's bare-bones entry and Scrunch's mid-market pricing, though aggregators quote the exact figures a little differently since Peec prices in euros. Its Pro tier runs about €205 a month before add-ons for two projects and three of seven supported language models, which puts the real cost of full engine coverage higher than the headline price suggests.
What does Profound cost, and who is it for?
Profound is built for marketing teams that already know they have an AI visibility problem and want to measure it precisely. As of July 2026 it published self-serve pricing for the first time: Starter at $99 a month for ChatGPT only and 50 prompts, and Growth at $399 a month for three engines and 100 prompts, both billed annually. Enterprise deployments with more platforms, seats, and API access climb well past that, into the thousands a month.
Profound leans on competitive research and market intelligence rather than day-to-day prompt tracking, which is a genuinely different job than what Otterly or Peec are doing.
What about Scrunch, Bluefish AI, and Goodie?
These three sit further up-market and mostly skip self-serve pricing entirely. Scrunch focuses on how AI agents experience a site as automated browsing grows, priced around ten times Otterly's entry point. Bluefish AI is built as an enterprise AI marketing suite for Fortune 500 brands, organized around monitoring, optimization, measurement, and AI commerce. Goodie targets enterprises that want multi-model monitoring, attribution, and crawler analytics bundled into one hub (Nick Lafferty, 2026).
None of the three publish pricing the way Profound now does, and that alone says something about who they're built for: a procurement team, not a business owner testing the waters.
What do none of these tools actually do?
Not one of the six platforms above generates the fix for a low score. They'll tell you your crawler rules are wrong, your schema is thin, or your citation rate dropped this week. None of them will write the corrected robots.txt, generate the missing schema, or rewrite the paragraph an AI engine keeps skipping.
That gap exists because monitoring and fixing are genuinely different products to build. A monitor needs prompt infrastructure and LLM API access at scale. A fix generator needs to actually read your specific pages and produce working code and copy. Most companies in this space picked one job and stayed there, which is why the category has six or seven monitoring tools and comparatively few built to close the loop.
Which GEO tool should you actually buy first?
Start with whatever tells you what's actually broken instead of only how often you're mentioned. Run a free audit before paying for a subscription, so you know whether the problem is crawler access, thin structured data, or something else, then decide whether a monitoring layer is worth adding on top.
GeoRoar runs that first audit for free against a fixed 100-point rubric across six categories, in about 30 seconds, no account needed. If the score turns up real gaps, the $99 Fix Pack generates the actual corrections instead of a to-do list. If you'd rather someone else implement them, that's the $999 done-for-you option. Once your site is fixed, Monitor at $19 a month tracks whether it stays that way. That's less than Otterly's cheapest paid tier, and it's the last step, not the first one.
How do I check my own score before buying anything?
Run the free GeoRoar audit. You'll get a score across the same six categories AI engines actually check, in about 30 seconds, with no signup, so you can decide whether you need a fix, a monitor, or both before spending a dollar on any of the tools above.
Think you can hit an A?
Here's a sample GeoRoar scorecard. Yours takes about 30 seconds.
This is a sample. Your real scorecard is free, no sign-up.
Run your free GEO audit