Do GEO tools really work? Cause I have tried a bunch of tools now and the results across all of them are really inconsistent. What tools are people using for optimising their visibility across AI?
23 comments · 89% upvoted · other discussions
Some are selling 'snake oil' --- however i have a client using profound - and as an agency at Walker Sands - me and my team use Peec AI ---- the data is valuable - especially with helping PR collaboration - and with tracking AI visibility and mentions and citations cross topics and personas --- however - its directional.
We upload prompts based on topic, brand/non-brand, persona, intent, journey stage, shortlist, productions, solutions - depending on the client - and monitor against gemini, copilot, perplexity, chatgpt, ai mode, and ai overviews, daily - and monitor those owned and earned performance, across the models - and types of content, domains, etc. It can really help inform PR and track PR activities, and it can give directional evidence of how and where you are showing up.
Read about the same in one of the startup pitches. Entire thesis was to make these GEO tools authentic- Sounded good, though they are still in building phase - I suppose this was their website link - www.gorelevant.ai
Search Console and MS clarity is a great combo for this
I have built a ton of AI visibility dashboards using Local SEO Data, and in doing I think a lot of people want geo tools to be magic and just print money.
They then get disappointed when they find out there are limits to what they can do (and you still have to do a lot of work).
That said tools which help you monitor a general trend for your AI visibility, and tools that help you spot opportunities to improve or ship enhancements based on data to pages, profiles, etc using agents does work and is very helpful.
they're super inconsistent because that's the nature of llms
llms aren't search engines with a predetermined index that's just pulled on request. their answers are different every time. the chances of an answer being the same, with the same recommendations, mentions, and citations, are insanely low
I don't think they are scams, Imo it's just people expect too much from them, as if they are going to fix the main problem, but thats why they are called TOOLS lol. I have used aiclicks recently it's helpful with other seo stuff no only the geo part.
The best way to see whether the tool is doing its job is to compare it with leads generated by LLMs. If your visibility is around 10% and you have 1-none leads coming from LLMs, then it's doing an okay job. But if your visibility score is 46 and you don't see leads coming from LLMs, you've either chosen the wrong prompts or the tool is off.
It depends on the job to be done. If its SEO then no.
Realmente el aporte está en los prompts e intencionalidad de búsqueda para ideas de contenidos
I recommend following the steps on this video. I made it myself to help clarify about GEO, which is easier than it looks. It's just a few key considerations + consistency. Hope this helps out.
GEO tools are like Semrush: people will gladly pay a lot of money for a gourmet keyword planner if you get a bunch of influencers to say you can only do SEO with it."
I build one of these so take it with salt, but inconsistent doesn't mean scam. The answers themselves are inconsistent. Ask Chatgpt the same question three times and you can get three different lists of brands. on top of that, some tools hit the API and some check the app, which dont always answer the same. Some engines search the web live and some answer from memory, and each tool uses its own set of prompts. so two tools can both be "right" and still show you different numbers.
What i would check in any tool, does it show you the actual answers and sources, not just a score. Does it run each question more than once. Does it separate engines that searched from ones answering from memory. and does it tell you how small the sample is. If you only get a visibility score out of 100 with nothing behind it, thats the part I wouldnt trust.
Also read it as a trend over weeks, not a number on one day. And if you want something free with real data, microsoft clarity now shows citations from copilot and bing with the queries the AI actually ran. Only microsoft surfaces, but its their own data, not a simulation.
Sofian, founder of AEO Copilot (a GEO tool)
Those GEO tools won't meet your expectations if you stop at measuring AI visibility. Their purpose is not to measure but to increase your AI visibility.
Of course, in order to increase, you need to measure first.
So, whatever tool you use, don't stop at measurement. Just try to set prompts you want to optimize for and start implementing the recommendations.
When I started, I got no LLMs visitors. Today, it's almost 10% of my signups. (still far away of my Search acquisition).
I wouldn’t say a scam, but probably not worth the money
yes, a scam! at least with the messaging they use or results they promise. The truth is that llms are too much of a black box, with only model labs truly knowing the answer.
All buzz. Best rely on Bing WMT and Google Search Console.
And of course (Google) analytics. Mentions are not a goal, visitors are, or actually: revenue.
Zars 1 points · 11d ago
Second this, GSC and actual referral traffic in GA4 seems most reliable so far.