LLMrefs ↗
LLMrefs · lower-cost multi-engine starter workflow · broader named platform coverage
← All toolsAnother direction / 01 Another direction / 02 Another direction / 03
The selection guideSource-backed research ↗
AI Search Monitoring / ChatGPT-focused AI visibility index and action platform.
Am I On AI
A ChatGPT-focused AI visibility index with weekly recommendations and citation insights
AI visibility monitoringCitation analysisGEO action planning
Why it stands out
Public methodology states prompt design, scan cadence, rolling window, and regional boundaries.
Source review: · Public-source research, not a hands-on test
↗ Best for
Lean marketing teams needing a ChatGPT visibility baseline.
! Know before you buy
Sampled ChatGPT visibility is not universal market share, multi-engine coverage, or causal ROI evidence.
01 / Editorial assessment
Is Am I On AI for you?
The AICiteKit take
Am I On AI is a reasonable entry point when the question is specifically whether a brand appears in ChatGPT and which domains shape those answers. Its public methodology names curated prompt ranges, weekly scans, a rolling 30-day window, US/English emphasis, and the current single-model boundary. The tradeoff is coverage and commercial certainty: Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity are described as future expansion, while the official pricing page checked here exposes package names and a trial but not readable numeric prices. Independent product-specific context is directional rather than a controlled validation, so treat the index as a focused baseline, not universal AI visibility or proof of GEO outcomes.
A good fit if you are…
- Lean marketing teams needing a ChatGPT visibility baseline.
- Consultants and agencies investigating citation domains and category presence.
- Content and PR teams turning observed source gaps into testable work.
Consider another option if…
- Teams needing broad multi-engine monitoring today.
- International or multilingual programs requiring validated regional coverage.
- Developers or revenue teams needing a documented API or causal ROI attribution.
02 / Scope, not promises
Features & coverage
- Current model coverage
ChatGPT only according to the public methodology; Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity are future expansion.
Archived research · Official methodology checked 2026-10-16Research excerpt · Model and region coverage- Measurement cadence
Categories scanned every 7 days; metrics use a rolling 30-day window.
Archived research · Official methodology checked 2026-10-16Research excerpt · How the workflow works- Prompt sample
100–200 curated prompts per category across discovery, use-case, and problem-solving intents.
Archived research · Official methodology checked 2026-10-16Research excerpt · Curated prompt sets- Regional boundary
Primary collection is United States with English (US) language settings; international expansion is planned.
Archived research · Official methodology checked 2026-10-16Research excerpt · Model and region coverage
Brand and citation metrics
The methodology defines mention frequency, visibility percentage, citation frequency, citation impact, and domain classification. Several richer metrics are marked coming soon or planned.
Curated weekly measurement
Categories use 100–200 curated prompts and weekly scans summarized over a rolling 30-day window. This creates a directional baseline, not a census of customer questions.
Weekly action recommendations
The homepage presents personalized action items based on account ChatGPT response data. Public evidence does not prove that following them improves citations or revenue.
Coverage boundary
The current methodology says ChatGPT is the single model focus and US/English collection is primary. Do not infer coverage of Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, or other regions.
A focused evaluation workflow
- Define a category and target intent.
- Review curated ChatGPT prompt coverage.
- Inspect mention, visibility, and citation-domain signals.
- Use weekly recommendations as hypotheses for content or PR work.
- Resample over the rolling window and compare directionally.
03 / Commercial boundaries
Pricing & limits
Terms below reflect the 2026-10-16 source review, not a new live quote. Confirm currency, billing term, tax and required scope with the provider.
- Pricing signal
Official page advertises Pro, Prism, and GEO Council plus a 7-day trial; Rankability reports approximately $99–$100/month single-brand and ~$250/month multi-brand.
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-16; official numeric price matrix requires confirmationResearch excerpt · Pricing and limits
Pricing context & qualifications
The official pricing page checked 2026-10-16 shows Pro, Prism, and GEO Council packages and a 7-day free trial, but the extracted page did not expose numeric prices or full allowances. Rankability reports approximately $99–$100/month for single-brand access and about $250/month for multi-brand access; verify current checkout, brands, prompt limits, service scope, and cancellation terms directly.
04 / The tradeoffs
Strengths & weaknesses
Reasons to shortlist
- Public methodology states prompt design, scan cadence, rolling window, and regional boundaries.
- Separates brand mentions from source-domain citation metrics.
- Connects account observations to weekly action items.
- Provides a free public index and advertises a 7-day trial.
Reasons to pause
- Current methodology says ChatGPT is the only tracked model.
- US and English (US) collection limits international interpretation.
- Official numeric pricing, allowances, API access, and retention were not confirmed.
- No checked source proves accuracy, repeatability, traffic, conversions, or revenue lift.
Sampled ChatGPT visibility is not universal market share, multi-engine coverage, or causal ROI evidence.
05 / Choose by the job
Alternatives to consider
Editorial fit comparisons—not performance rankings or claims that one option always wins.
Rankshift ↗
Rankshift · recurring AI visibility monitoring and action reporting · different workflow and pricing
Peec AI ↗
Peec AI · broader AI-search analytics and agency reporting · more platform depth
06 / What we can substantiate
Reviews & evidence
Independent evidence is directional rather than a product-quality score. Rankability provides a competitor-authored product profile with approximate pricing and a snapshot-oriented positioning; Zapier provides broader category research and says it evaluated many tools, but does not expose a controlled Am I On AI result. No checked independent source validates mention recall, citation precision, repeatability, or business outcomes.
AICiteKit assessment: public-source research, not a hands-on product test. Official materials establish stated scope; reviews are dated and may concern the broader platform. Neither establishes guaranteed citations, traffic or revenue.
Sources & original verification dates
| Source | Evidence type | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Am I On AI official homepage ↗ | Official product page | |
| Am I On AI pricing ↗ | Official pricing page; numeric prices not exposed in extraction | |
| AI Visibility Index methodology ↗ | Official methodology page | |
| Rankability Am I On AI profile ↗ | Independent competitor-authored product profile; directional pricing | |
| Zapier AI visibility tools guide ↗ | Independent category research and testing guide; not product validation | |
| CitedIndex Am I On AI listing ↗ | Directory discovery source; not quality evidence |
Original review evidence & date context
Preserved from the published research. Dates, review counts and product-scope qualifications below have not been refreshed by this layout migration.
Evidence snapshot
| Source | Public signal | What it supports | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official homepage | ChatGPT visibility dashboard, weekly action items, source comparison | Vendor-stated workflow | High for stated behavior; not independent |
| Official methodology | 100–200 prompts/category, weekly scans, rolling 30-day window, US/English focus, ChatGPT-only current coverage | Methodology and boundaries | High for stated methodology; vendor-authored |
| Rankability profile | Snapshot positioning and approximate price context | Independent directional context | Medium-low; competitor-authored |
| Zapier guide | Category research and testing criteria; Am I On AI considered but not selected | Independent category context | Medium; not product validation |
No checked source proves citation precision, recall, repeatability, multi-engine coverage, international validity, traffic, conversions, or revenue lift.
Research notes & unresolved discrepancies
- Official homepage, pricing page, and methodology checked 2026-10-16.
- Rankability and Zapier were used for independent product/category context, not efficacy validation.
- CitedIndex was used for candidate discovery only.
- No checked source proves multi-engine coverage, API access, international validity, citation accuracy, or ROI.
Layout migration: October 4, 2026. The original MDX research is retained in the repository; this reorganization does not refresh its factual verification dates.