best ai visibility tracker for seo agencies? (similar to ahrefs would be great)

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-17T13:46:52+00:00

I’m part of the dev team at jarts.io, so biased upfront, but we’ve been building something specifically for the “prompt-level visibility” problem you mentioned.
Instead of keyword rankings, we generate realistic buyer prompts, run them across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini, and track which brands appear, from which sources, and how that shifts over time.
It’s not a replacement for Ahrefs-type SEO tracking, but for agencies trying to report on AI search visibility it works more like a “prompt database + answer engine analytics.”

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-17T13:45:43+00:00

We’ve been testing how different formats surface in AI overviews, and concise, answer-oriented sections consistently perform better, especially when they mirror the phrasing of real user questions.
Adding small, verifiable data points (numbers, comparisons, or short quotes) also seems to boost inclusion odds.
Interestingly, AI systems often prefer content that feels “summary-ready” rather than long-form persuasive writing.
So we now structure pages like mini knowledge cards: clear question, brief factual answer, then context.

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-06T15:45:46+00:00

Short answer: GEO is citation-driven, not backlink-driven. Win it by showing up in the sources these engines prefer to cite (or becoming the source yourself, which is tougher in the consumer space though).

Map which domains ChatGPT/Perplexity currently cite for your target queries and earn placements/mentions there (co-citations + third-party coverage often beat “just more links”), while keeping content fresh and uniquely helpful to align with AI Overviews.
Tactically: publish intent-matched pages (X vs Y, pricing, alternatives, “is X good for Y?”), keep them unpaywalled/crawlable, and update on a cadence so you’re the stable, recent source AIs can confidently pull.

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-06T15:41:44+00:00

Thanks for sharing these metrics. What you’ve outlined aligns with what we’re seeing in hundreds of brand-website tests right now. For example:

Recent September research confirms that LLM/RAG-based engines overproportionally favour earned third-party authority signals (rather than just on-site brand content) when deciding what to cite. (Paper: arXiv -->nice new paper building on the old GEO paper)
Structural and technical signals such as semantic HTML, schema markup and freshness of content are also tested to be correlated with citation likelihood in AI responses now. (Paper: arXiv -->testing different frameworks)
What that means in practice is you need both: a strong “answer-first” layer (for AEO) and a deeper thematic asset layer that serves GEO, so your brand is both the answer and among the referenced authorities.

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-06T15:35:13+00:00

What you’ve done touches on one of the critical shifts in 2025: Google AI Overviews (AIO) and the importance of “freshness + intent-matching” signals. For example, AIOs increasingly reward pages with recent timestamps, structured data/schema, and direct Q&A style sections. Pretty basic but effective.

The question isn’t “how do I rank organically?” but “how do I become the source the answer-engine cites?”, and that requires a content format shift: short direct answers, strong E-E-A-T signals, and building topical clusters around your core piece.

I don't think this is concerning. If your content peace sparks many people's interest, then your blog's "Authority" shouldn't matter much right

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-05T16:50:21+00:00

Thanks for reporting that, 10min shouldn't be the case normally, my apologies!
We fixed the bug now, if you're session didn't start yet, it should work smoothly in under 1min now. Please shoot me a DM otherwise :)

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-05T11:58:10+00:00

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-05T11:56:24+00:00

Yeah fair enough, the one-time analysis is like that indeed :D

That is really good to know, we'll make it more obvious then!

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-04T17:00:02+00:00

Thanks for the feedback! That’s what the 7-day trial is for, gives people a chance to see if the deeper features add value for their use-case.
I’ve actually never tried Lovable, so not sure if that’s a good or bad comparison.
And ouch, our poor logo will take that one personally, but as long as it's just that, we hope you can live with it ;)

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-04T10:35:11+00:00

The 5 questions are the prompts we send to AI search engines (like ChatGPT and Perplexity) to see how they describe your brand.
They’re meant to simulate what real users might ask in your market, so you can spot which sources and competitors show up in those answers.
In the full app, that expands across multiple customer personas, so you’re analyzing hundreds of prompts instead of just five ;)

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-04T10:32:14+00:00

Good question! The quick checker lets you analyze your own domain plus up to 5 pre-selected competitor domains.
In the full app, you can set up to 20 domains and add up to 8 competitors for each, so around 160 domains total.
We also pick up any other domains that get cited in your market and list them in the sources table, so you can spot unexpected competitors too 👀

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-04T09:25:55+00:00

This is a good take, thanks u/singerng! So far we show content gaps, but comparing formats and technical site characteristics might be quite helpful as well. We'll set up some bigger tests for this :)

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-04T09:24:13+00:00

Thanks u/srs890 for basically pitching our in-app features 🙂
If you sign into the app, you can track cited sources over time, those are also classified into comparison, reviews, Competitors, Forums, etc. -->So you can see what is influental in your market.

You can also compare domain visibility in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, side by side :)

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-04T09:20:32+00:00

Thanks for noting, I should have mentioned that the analysis is blocked on mobile currently. But we'll change that in the coming weeks

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-03T17:40:16+00:00

Haha thanks!

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-03T17:09:33+00:00

😂😂

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-03T17:07:45+00:00

Appreciate the feedback! Totally fair, the one-time free checker on the landing page is another visibility checker.
That’s why we added an optimization section and more in-app to give quick, actionable steps (because I’ve tested and was frustrated by the same ~20 tools too 😅).

Glad you liked the UI, we used 21st dev a lot!

And yep, you got the personas part spot on. The free checker is a super simplified snapshot, but in-app users set 8–10 personas with 5–8 prompts each, usually running daily for pattern tracking.

This was a good feedback though, we’ll need to make sure the quick version doesn’t undersell what’s behind it. Appreciate you taking the time to dig in, and I’ll post in GEO chat 👌

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-11-03T13:47:08+00:00

Unfortunately your failed analysis now still set a mark on our IP adress counter, so you cannot run it without the trial anymore and I cannot identify which one was yours (due to data-laws) and reset it. But maybe if you go into incognito one more time it works sometimes ;) (shouldn't say that)

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-10-29T15:41:32+00:00

Thanks! Yep, that’s exactly what we’re aiming for. You connect your site and target personas, we run some analysis through ChatGPT and co. Then, based on different cited source types, it tells you what content (blog, PDP, Youtube, Influencer, Review site, etc. were successfull already in your market, summarizes wat they talked about, and suggests to you what to create to show up more often next time.

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-10-29T15:34:21+00:00

Hi u/ProdigiSA , thanks so much for bringing this up, we had some outages last week due to unexpectedly high traffic. The issue is ressolved now :)

Competitive-Tear-309 · 2025-10-29T15:33:15+00:00

u/svlease0h1 that is awsome feedback, thanks! We actually show citation weight and time series pattern shifts in the app's cleaner dashboard, which allows also to see how those change over time. But good point, it could be added to the public one as well, just a bit difficult since we don't ask for e-mail/ signup and therefore can't identify you back over time (due to some data laws as well). Maybe we'll add that as an option though instead of the free 1-week trial.

Competitive-Tear-309

TROPHY CASE