Clearscope

The following reflects the official pricing page checked October 3, 2026. Prices are USD per month as displayed and may change. The page directly says 14 day free trial, links each plan to the signup flow, and says there are no contracts, monthly plans can be cancelled without penalty, and users can upgrade or downgrade as needs change. It also says unlimited sharing and exporting, priority support, and onboarding/training are included on every plan. These are useful commercial and portability terms, but they do not remove the plan’s page, prompt, topic-exploration, or draft limits. TrustRadius’s October 3, 2026 pricing listing still says no free version or trial, so the live signup path should take precedence while the discrepancy remains disclosed.

Plan	Price	Published limits and features
Essentials	$129/month	50 tracked prompts, 50 pages, 20 monthly topic explorations, 20 monthly drafts
Business	$399/month	300 tracked prompts, 300 pages, 50 monthly topic explorations, 20 monthly drafts, dedicated account manager
Enterprise	Custom	Custom credits, agreements, crawler whitelisting, SSO, and tailored terms

The pricing page also lists additional capacity. Essentials and Business display additional pages at $25/month and $15/month respectively for the listed 100/200-page options; additional drafts are displayed at $50 for 10 and $20 for 20. Business and Enterprise add-ons vary. The page does not make the draft billing unit or unused-capacity policy as explicit as the page allowance, so confirm whether these are recurring or one-time units, how unused capacity behaves, and whether AI Search prompts consume separate credits.

The most important commercial limitation is that the entry plan is not unlimited: 50 prompts and 50 pages can be enough for one brand baseline, but may be restrictive for multiple products, regions, languages, and competitors.

Evidence snapshot

Source	Public signal	What it supports	Confidence
Clearscope pricing	Checked October 3, 2026: Essentials $129/month, Business $399/month, 50/300 prompts and pages, 20/50 topic explorations, 20 drafts, unlimited users, unlimited sharing/exporting, 14-day free trial, onboarding/training, priority support, no-contract monthly plans, Enterprise custom	Current commercial terms, portability terms, and named AI Search surfaces; direct trial wording conflicts with the TrustRadius listing	High
Clearscope homepage	Checked October 3, 2026: homepage names ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude for visibility tracking; Query Discovery names Google, Gemini, GPT, and Claude; product pages describe content drafting, optimization, and monitoring	Current vendor-stated surface and workflow scope; does not establish that every surface is available for prompt tracking on every plan or prove outcomes	High for stated scope; low for outcomes
Clearscope AI Search feature path	Checked October 3, 2026: URL returns the vendor’s “Not Found” page; current AI Search scope is exposed through the homepage, pricing page, and product links instead	Evidence of URL drift; do not use this path as current feature documentation or assume it represents an unavailable capability	High for URL status
G2 Clearscope reviews	4.9/5 from 92 reviews in the current indexed listing checked October 3, 2026; G2 shows 92% five-star, 6% four-star, and 1% three-star reviews, with users praising ease of use and content recommendations while flagging pricing and limited explanation	General product satisfaction, usability, and optimization feedback	Medium-high; broader product sample, not GEO-specific
TrustRadius Clearscope reviews	8/10 from 12 reviews; recurring themes include useful keyword research, content briefs, simple grading, and time savings, while users mention interface friction, bugs, limited keyword data, and cost	Independent workflow feedback and a second review-platform cross-check	Medium-low; older review sample and not AI Search-specific
TrustRadius Clearscope pricing	Current listing shows Essentials $129, Business $399, Enterprise custom, but says no free version or trial	Pricing cross-check and a live discrepancy against the official 14-day trial offer	Medium; third-party directory may lag the vendor’s signup flow
Capterra Clearscope	4.9/5 from 60 reviews; the live page shows 4.9/5 for ease of use and customer service; listing last updated September 16, 2026 says contact vendor, no free trial, and no free version	Independent review-directory signal, pricing/trial discrepancy, and recurring content-workflow feedback	Medium; platform may earn referral fees
Rankability Clearscope review	2026 hands-on-style review describes Reports, Content Editor, Inventory, integrations, supported locales, and the need for separate technical SEO/backlink tools	Practical content workflow and product boundary	Medium-low; independent article, but test scope and commercial relationship are not fully disclosed
theStacc Clearscope review	March 2026 competitor review cross-checks $129/$399 pricing, A–F grading, unlimited users, and workflow gaps	Practical tradeoffs and what Clearscope does not provide	Low-medium; author discloses competing-product interest
Slate Clearscope review	June 2026 buyer-oriented review corroborates $129/$399 tiers, unlimited users, and credit-based limits for explorations, drafts, tracked topics, and inventory pages; recommends specialist AI-search tools for deeper governance	Independent pricing/workflow cross-check and a concrete limitation of the newer AI Search layer	Medium-low; commercial comparison, not a controlled outcome study
Clearscope 2.0 announcement	Vendor describes lower prices, AI Search discoverability, and add-on pricing changes	Product-change context and vendor positioning	Medium for announced features; low for outcomes
Graphite customer story	Customer story describing SEO/AEO workflow	Vendor-selected evidence about one customer’s use case	Low for causal outcomes

Recurring positive themes

The directly checked review platforms and independent reviews support these cautious themes:

• The product is designed around a structured content workflow rather than an ungrounded chat prompt.
• The combination of research, optimization, monitoring, and internal linking can reduce handoffs for content teams.
• Prompt tracking creates a practical way to add AI Search observations to an existing editorial process.
• Public pricing makes an initial fit test easier than a sales-only platform.
• G2 and Capterra reviewers repeatedly describe the interface as straightforward and the recommendations as useful for improving content coverage.
• Reviewers also report time savings during article optimization and value in seeing competitor terms and content gaps in one workflow.
• Rankability’s 2026 review describes a coherent discover → draft → optimize → monitor workflow, plus Google Docs, WordPress, and Microsoft Word integrations and support for English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Those observations apply to the content product, not necessarily to the newer AI Search layer.

The public sample also surfaces recurring concerns:

• Price is high for smaller teams or occasional users.
• Some reviewers want more explanation for why recommendations are made.
• The current Capterra sample also surfaces concrete tradeoffs: users praise the WordPress/Google Docs workflow and time savings, while others flag high cost, formatting friction when pasting to WordPress, a basic keyword tool, and concern that grading can encourage keyword stuffing.

These are workflow observations, not proof of improved rankings, citations, or revenue. The review samples are also largely about the established content product, not the newer AI Search tracking layer.

Recurring concerns and evidence limitations

• Independent evidence specifically about Clearscope’s newer AI Search tracking is limited in the sources checked.
• The public page does not disclose enough methodology to compare its visibility numbers directly with specialist trackers.
• Vendor customer stories are vendor-selected evidence and should not be treated as independent validation.
• Any G2 or Capterra rating should be read as a satisfaction signal for the broader product, not as evidence that AI Search prompts cause business outcomes.
• Buyers should verify whether the AI Search feature returns complete answers and source URLs or only summarized visibility indicators.

How much should buyers trust the evidence?

Trust is strongest for published pricing and feature existence. The G2 and Capterra ratings provide a reasonably strong directional usability signal (92 and 60 reviews respectively), but both are platform-level samples and do not isolate AI Search tracking. The current official page’s no-contract and unlimited-export statements are vendor claims, while Capterra’s no-trial and contact-vendor disclosures show that marketplace data can describe a different access path. Rankability adds useful workflow detail, but its review does not establish an independently measured AI Search result set. TheStacc is useful for a practical gap analysis but is explicitly competitor-authored. Slate’s June 2026 review independently corroborates the public tier structure while emphasizing credit-based limits and the need for deeper specialist tooling, but it is also a commercial comparison rather than a controlled outcome study. Evidence remains weaker for AI Search outcome claims because the feature is newer and public methodology is limited. A buyer should confirm whether the 14-day offer is actually available, what “unlimited exporting” includes, and whether the displayed add-ons are recurring capacity before comparing a stable prompt set with manual checks.

AICiteKit interpretation

Clearscope is better supported as a content optimization system with an AI Search measurement layer than as a complete GEO intelligence platform. Its value depends on whether the team can turn a prompt observation into a useful, reviewed content action.

What to verify during a trial

1. Which engines and regions are actually available on the intended plan?
2. Does each tracked prompt expose the complete answer, citations, timestamp, and model context?
3. Are prompt results repeatable enough to support a trend report?
4. Can the team separate branded, category, comparison, and evaluation prompts?
5. How are extra prompts, pages, drafts, and locales billed?
6. Can recommendations be exported or connected to the CMS and analytics stack?
7. Does the optimization score improve factual usefulness, or only increase term coverage?
8. Can editors preserve original evidence, links, product facts, and brand voice?
9. What happens to historical data if a page or prompt is removed?
10. Which claims in the dashboard are observed versus modeled or inferred?

Review evidence sources

• Clearscope pricing — plans, quotas, prompt tracking, and trial terms.

• Clearscope homepage — current product positioning and listed workflow.

• G2 Clearscope — 4.9/5 from 92 reviews in the current indexed listing checked October 3, 2026; rating is for the broader product.

• TrustRadius Clearscope — 8/10 from 12 reviews checked October 3, 2026; workflow feedback is older and not specific to AI Search tracking.

• Capterra Clearscope — 4.9/5 from 60 reviews and sentiment split when checked September 22, 2026; referral and sponsored-profile disclosures apply.

• Rankability Clearscope review — independent practical workflow review; scope and commercial relationship are not fully disclosed.

• theStacc Clearscope review — competitor-authored practical comparison, used with bias disclosed.

• Clearscope 2.0 announcement — vendor announcement for the product’s AI Search/discoverability positioning and pricing changes.

• Graphite customer story — vendor-selected customer evidence, not independent validation.

• Clearscope — product scope and AI Search positioning.

• Clearscope pricing — current plans, limits, add-ons, 14-day free trial, and named AI Search surfaces checked October 3, 2026.

• Clearscope homepage — current ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Query Discovery, and workflow positioning checked October 3, 2026.

• Clearscope AI Search feature path — checked October 3, 2026; returns the vendor’s Not Found page, so it is retained as URL-drift evidence rather than current feature documentation.

• G2 Clearscope reviews — independent review profile.

• TrustRadius Clearscope reviews — 8/10 from 12 reviews and workflow feedback checked October 3, 2026; not AI Search-specific.

• Capterra Clearscope — review-directory profile and review sample.

• Rankability Clearscope review — practical workflow review checked August 30, 2026.

• theStacc Clearscope review — competitor comparison with commercial-interest disclosure.

• Slate Clearscope review — June 2026 buyer-oriented comparison used for an independent pricing and limitation cross-check; not outcome evidence.

• Clearscope 2.0 announcement — vendor product-change context.

• Graphite customer story — vendor-selected evidence, labeled accordingly.

Last reviewed: October 3, 2026

Data confidence: High for public pricing and named workflow features; medium for the broader content product; low-medium for AI Search outcome claims because public methodology and independent feature-specific feedback remain limited.