Looking to benchmark your LLM visibility? We assessed the best GEO tools, so you don’t have to. 

People are now getting answers directly from AI platforms, not just search results pages. Generative engine optimisation (GEO) measurement platforms make it possible to track whether your brand is being cited, trusted and positioned correctly inside those AI generated answers, rather than relying on guesswork.

However, running prompts and reviewing outputs is only one part of the process. At With, our GEO benchmarking methodology is data-led and ICP-focused, with human analysis wrapped around the AI. Measurement alone does not deliver visibility. Interpretation, strategic alignment and understanding how LLM outputs intersect with audience priorities are what turn data into meaningful action.

We assessed the leading platforms to understand what each one does well, where the limitations sit, and which types of strategic communication goals they best serve.

How did we assess the GEO tools?

The AI guardians at With reviewed each platform through a live demo with the vendor, typically led by a sales or product specialist. This meant real workflows were tested, allowing us to interrogate how insights were generated by each tool. 

With’s AI Guardians scored against a consistent framework covering:

• Prompt quality and flexibility
• Measurement and reporting
• Competitor and citation insight
• Strategic usefulness for comms, SEO and digital PR teams
• Ease of use and scalability
• Breadth of LLM and platform coverage

The aim was not to crown a single winner, because GEO is not a standalone objective. At With, AI visibility matters where it supports wider business and reputational goals. Different organisations therefore need different GEO capabilities depending on their maturity and priorities.

Peec.ai

In our opinion, Peec.ai is the strongest option for organisations that want to actively improve how they appear in AI-generated answers.

Prompts can be organised by topic, product area or issue, and aligned to awareness, consideration and reputation-style questions. This makes the data easier to use in planning and strategy discussions, not just reporting.

The platform also points clearly to next steps. It highlights where competitors are being cited and the client is not, surfaces content gaps that limit AI visibility, and shows which formats and sources LLMs consistently reference. This feeds into decisions around media targeting, thought leadership, content updates and digital PR priorities.

Peec.ai also provides a strong view of competitive positioning inside LLM outputs, showing where competitors dominate certain topics and how visibility compares with sentiment. This is particularly useful in crowded or highly scrutinised sectors where narrative control matters.

Profound

Profound’s main differentiator is its focus on creating content that is explicitly designed for LLM consumption.

Rather than prioritising benchmarking alone, Profound helps teams structure FAQs, explainers and owned content so that AI systems can easily interpret and surface it. When the With team tried this, it made it most valuable earlier in the workflow, influencing what models are likely to draw from in the first place.

It offers less depth in competitor benchmarking than Peec.ai, but stronger support for operationalising GEO principles within content teams.

Otterly.ai

The AI Guardians found Otterly.ai to be the most accessible option for teams that want a clear view of AI visibility without investing in a full strategic platform.

Pricing starts at $29 per month and scales predictably with a starting prompt volume of 15 searches. This makes it suitable for smaller teams or for organisations taking a first step into GEO measurement.

Its standout feature is the Citations Report, which clearly shows which sources AI models are drawing from, where competitors appear, and where the client is currently absent. 

We felt some automated prompts were fairly broad, and there was limited guidance on how to turn results into strategic next steps. For teams looking for lightweight benchmarking rather than ongoing optimisation, this will often be sufficient.

MuckRack

MuckRack’s primary strength is its citation functionality, which is no surprise given its background as a media database. MuckRack gives users the ability to not only see the top cited domains, but takes this one step further to show users which individual journalists are being targeted. 

Beyond this however, we felt that MuckRack lacked some of the competitive analysis capabilities of the other platforms we analysed. It was also by far the most expensive tool that we analysed. 

Athena

Athena’s primary strength is consistent tracking across a wide range of AI platforms. It allows teams to monitor where a brand appears across major systems, including Google AI Overview and AI Mode, ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Grok and Claude.

The platform brings this data together in a unified dashboard. In our review, Athena stood out for its ease of navigation, making it easier to understand visibility, citation rate and competitor presence without needing to move between multiple tools or views.

Overall, Athena is most useful when the priority is understanding where a brand appears across AI search and how that visibility compares to competitors.

Geostar

Geostar has a GEO offering that can be used either as a standalone tool or alongside agency support. The platform covers the core GEO basics, including visibility scores, citation analysis, sentiment tracking and competitor comparisons across major AI platforms. 

In our testing, the user interface felt more complex than other platforms we reviewed. Strategic insights were there, but they were less immediately obvious and often benefited from additional explanation. Geostar’s model reflects this; it places clear value on a “human proxy” to interpret data and adjust strategy.

Overall, Geostar offers a broad set of GEO features with scope to adapt as client needs evolve