GEOHATS alternatives
10 other tools that measure whether AI assistants name your brand, with what each one publishes about price, sampling and uncertainty. GEOHATS is a track-to-publish loop that writes the page for you and pushes it to your CMS, sold as a one-time lifetime licence.
We make Standing, which is one of the rows below, and it is labeled. The table sorts by published entry price rather than by our preference, so it opens with Otterly AI at $29/mo, 15 prompts and we appear wherever ours lands. Every figure comes from the vendor's own pricing page, documentation or help center, verified August 6, 2026. Where a vendor has not published something it says not published, rather than being scored as a zero.
| Tool | Entry price | Billed by | Runs per prompt | Uncertainty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otterly AIThe cheapest serious entry point, aimed at small teams and solo marketers. | $29/mo, 15 prompts | Prompts | Not published | None published |
| HubSpot AEOHalf the price, inside the CRM you may already pay for, and it publishes no sampling depth. | $50/mo, 25 prompts | Prompts | Not published | None published |
| Peec AIEuropean pure-play with the best agency workflows in the category. | $95/mo, 50 prompts | Prompts | Not published | None published |
| ProfoundThe best-funded pure-play, built for enterprise brand teams. | $99/mo, 50 prompts | Prompts | 1 per prompt per engine per day | Researched, not shipped |
| Semrush AI ToolkitAI visibility next to the rest of Semrush, on a very large query database. | $99/mo, one domain, 25 prompts | Tracked prompts | Not published | One disclaimer sentence |
| StandingThis is usFixed shared basket, 5 runs per prompt per engine, and a confidence band on every score. | $100/mo, 3 domains | Domains | 5 per prompt per engine (3 free) | 95% band, in the product |
| Scrunch AIPure-play built around how AI crawlers and agents experience your site. | $250/mo, 125 prompt variants | Prompt variants | Not published | None, a waiting period instead |
| AthenaHQCredit-based pure-play with no prompt cap and a large content library. | $295/mo, 3,600 credits | Credits | Not published | None, and missing days are zeroed |
| Ahrefs Brand RadarAI visibility bolted onto the SEO suite many teams already pay for. | Requires an Ahrefs plan | Checks | 1 per prompt per engine per location | None, but instability disclosed |
| EvertuneResearch-led, and the deepest disclosed sampling anywhere in the category. | Not published | Prompts | 100 per prompt per model | None published |
Why people look for an alternative to GEOHATS
Three reasons, each one a property of their published product rather than an opinion about it.
- The deliverable is a page on your own site. Most of what an engine quotes in a category sits on somebody else's domain, and nothing in the loop reaches those.
- No sampling depth is published, so there is no way to tell whether a change between two readings is a change or the run-to-run variance these engines produce on their own.
- Their own FAQ asks "Do you verify the facts in generated pages?", which is the right question to ask of any tool that publishes at volume, and it is a question you are answering after the page is live rather than before.
When to stay with GEOHATS
Choose GEOHATS if you own the pages you need to fix, you want the drafting and publishing done in one place, and a one-time price for three sites matters more to you than knowing whether the number moved.
Where GEOHATS is genuinely stronger than us:
- Lifetime pricing at $47 is a genuinely different offer from every monthly tracker here, and for a solo founder tracking three sites it is the cheapest way into this category by a wide margin.
- The loop closes. Finding a gap, drafting the page and publishing it to WordPress in one product is real convenience, and no tracker in this table does the publishing half at all.
- They label their demo dashboard SAMPLE DATA and state its size. Most of this category renders invented numbers under a fictional brand and says nothing, so this is a standard worth naming.
- Bring-your-own-keys with usage uncapped is the honest way to price model spend, and they put it on the homepage rather than in a settings screen.
The question this table is really about
Two of the five columns matter more than the other three, and they are the two most of this category declines to fill in.
Every tool here asks AI engines a set of questions and reports how often your brand comes up. Answers move between runs, so the same question asked twice can produce two different scores with nothing having changed. How many times a tool asks, and whether it tells you how much of a move was noise, is what separates a measurement from a single draw.
7 of the 11 tools here do not publish a run count at all. Of the ones that do, Evertune samples deepest by a distance, at 100 runs per prompt per model against our 5, and that is on this page because leaving it off would be the same omission we are describing.
Nobody in this table except us publishes a confidence interval in the product. Evertune could: at 100 runs they could report roughly a ±10 point band at 50% and choose not to.
Standing compared with GEOHATS, directly
Choose Standing if you need to appear on sources you do not own, or if you have to show somebody that a change was real rather than run-to-run noise.
Standing vs GEOHATS, head to headAlternatives to the others
Or skip the shortlist and get the number
Every tool on this page sells a subscription before it tells you anything. The free check asks five AI surfaces what they recommend in your category and shows whether you come up, with the confidence band, without an account.