HubSpot AEO alternatives
9 other tools that measure whether AI assistants name your brand, with what each one publishes about price, sampling and uncertainty. HubSpot AEO is aI visibility tracking built into the HubSpot CRM, and bundled into its higher Marketing Hub tiers.
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 |
| 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 HubSpot AEO
Three reasons, each one a property of their published product rather than an opinion about it.
- The entry tier is 25 prompts, and prompts are the pricing unit, so a basket that covers a real category is what raises the bill.
- Sampling depth is not published anywhere in their material, so there is no way to tell how many times a question was asked before the score was printed.
- Their score blends five weighted dimensions: sentiment at 40 points, presence quality and brand recognition at 20 each, share of voice and market competition at 10. None of them carries an error bar, and a composite of five estimates with no interval moves for more reasons than a simple mention rate does, not fewer.
- Three engines are named in their own materials: ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini.
When to stay with HubSpot AEO
You already run HubSpot, especially on Marketing Hub Pro or Enterprise where it costs nothing extra, and you want AI visibility sitting next to the contacts and deals it should eventually be attributed to.
Where HubSpot AEO is genuinely stronger than us:
- Distribution, decisively. It ships inside a CRM that a very large number of businesses already use, and it is bundled free into Marketing Hub Pro and Enterprise. Most buyers will meet it without looking for it.
- Price. $50/mo is half our entry tier, and zero for an existing customer on the right plan.
- A genuinely free, no-account grader, which is a real gift to somebody who just wants a first look.
- The data sits beside contact and deal records, so AI visibility can be joined to pipeline. We cannot do that and it is a legitimate reason to choose them.
- Their citations view breaks down which content types and domains get cited in a category, which is a useful cut we do not ship.
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.
6 of the 10 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 HubSpot AEO, directly
You need to defend the number to somebody else. Ours arrives with its sampling depth and its interval attached, so a move can be shown to be larger than noise rather than asserted to be.
Standing vs HubSpot AEO, 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.