Rank Prompt

The official pricing page currently shows the following public plan ladder. The page’s monthly/annual toggle displays annual-billing effective monthly prices, while the Terms of Service states the monthly prices. Buyers should preserve both billing bases rather than treating the annual-equivalent figure as a month-to-month price.

Plan	Monthly price in Terms	Annual billing shown on pricing page	Credits / month	Selected limits and features
Free	$0	$0	One full report / limited access	One report, four named core engines, exports, GA4 and Search Console, up to 3 brands
Starter	$49	$39.17 effective ($470/year)	150	Up to 10 brands, six engines, content, audits, WordPress, reports, API allowance listed as 10k requests/month
Pro	$89	$71.25 effective ($855/year)	500	Up to 100 brands, 2 seats, outreach, priority support, API allowance listed as 25k requests/month
Agency	$149	$119.17 effective ($1,430/year)	1,000	Up to 500 brands, 10 seats, white-label reports, API allowance listed as 50k requests/month
Agency Plus	$299	$239.17 effective ($2,870/year)	2,000	Up to 1,000 brands, 25 seats, white-label app and client portal, approvals, client logins, API allowance listed as 100k requests/month

Credits are a material buying constraint. The official Terms state that a visibility prompt analysis uses one credit, an AI article uses 10 credits, a Brand Audit uses 10 credits plus one per citation page, a Lighthouse audit uses one credit, and some outreach or citation actions also consume credits. The Terms also list top-ups of 50 credits for $18, 100 for $35, and 200 for $65; unused monthly credits reset, while top-up credits do not expire. Confirm that these amounts remain current at checkout.

The official Terms say paid plans have a seven-day trial with 50 bonus credits and automatic conversion unless cancelled. The pricing page’s public CTA also says paid plans include a seven-day trial. A free first report is a diagnostic offer, not proof of unlimited free monitoring.

Evidence snapshot

Source	Public signal	What it supports	Confidence / bias
Rank Prompt official homepage	Checked September 16, 2026: six named platforms, monitoring, content, citations/outreach, Agent Mode, MCP, and GA4/Search Console connections	Product existence and vendor-stated workflow	High for stated capability; not outcome proof
Rank Prompt official pricing	Checked September 16, 2026: public Free, Starter, Pro, Agency, and Agency Plus tiers; annual-equivalent prices; credits, brand limits, trial, and feature gates	Current displayed commercial structure	High for displayed terms; confirm checkout
Rank Prompt Terms	Updated March 12, 2026: monthly prices, 7-day trial with 50 credits, automatic conversion, credit costs, top-ups, resets, cancellation and refund boundaries	Billing mechanics and operational limits	High for dated legal terms; reconcile with checkout
Rank Prompt ecommerce page	Checked September 16, 2026: product/category tracking, purchase-intent prompts, competitor analysis, multi-market coverage, weekly/daily cadence, cited sources	Vendor-stated ecommerce workflow	High for positioning; not independent efficacy evidence
CheckThat.ai Rank Prompt reviews	Reports 2 verified G2 reviews, no Trustpilot reviews, no confirmed Capterra listing, and insufficient review volume for confident buying decisions	Evidence scarcity and directional themes	Medium for its aggregation; low for product-quality consensus
EasyAI hands-on review	Dated February 2026; author reports eight months of use across five accounts and 200+ prompts, with positive usability and spot-check observations	Directional workflow and usability context	Medium-low; editorial self-report, method not independently audited
Ecommerce Paradise review	Dated August 2026; affiliate disclosure; reports ecommerce use cases, Real-Scan claims, and older $29/$89/$149 pricing	Directional ecommerce workflow context	Low-medium; affiliate bias and stale/conflicting price observation
G2 Rank Prompt listing	Direct listing identifies Rank Prompt as an AI visibility platform; current review count should be checked before purchase	Product identity and review-platform location	Medium; count and rating can change

Recurring positive themes

The independent sample is too small to claim broad customer consensus. The available editorial and aggregated signals point directionally to:

• Multi-engine visibility in one dashboard
• Clearer diagnosis than a single aggregate score, including prompts and source breakdowns
• Accessibility for agencies and smaller teams compared with enterprise platforms
• Action-oriented connections between monitoring, content, citations, and reports

These are directional themes, not statistically reliable proof of accuracy or business impact.

Recurring concerns and tradeoffs

• Credit rules are easy to underestimate when scanning daily or generating articles.
• Early-stage product maturity and limited independent reviews make enterprise validation important.
• Traditional SEO depth is narrower than a large SEO suite.
• Metrics such as visibility, prominence, and citation share need definitions and raw-answer inspection.
• Affiliate and vendor-adjacent comparisons can report stale prices or favorable positioning.

How much should buyers trust the evidence?

Trust the official pages for the published plan names, displayed prices, credit rules, and stated feature scope, while reconciling the pricing page with the Terms because the billing views differ. Treat CheckThat.ai’s small-review observation as evidence scarcity, not as a quality score. Treat EasyAI and Ecommerce Paradise as useful operational reading with lower confidence: the former is a self-reported hands-on review and the latter discloses affiliate links. None of these sources proves causal citation lift, traffic, orders, or revenue.

AICiteKit interpretation

Rank Prompt’s differentiator is not a unique visibility metric; it is the attempt to make a six-engine measurement result operational through credits, content, citation research, outreach, and agency reporting. The buying question is whether the team can reproduce raw answers and manage credit consumption—not whether the headline score predicts sales.

What to verify during a trial

1. Can the account export full answers, cited URLs, timestamps, prompt IDs, markets, and engine identifiers?
2. Does an ecommerce result represent a product card, a prose recommendation, or an inferred product mention?
3. Which product, SKU, category, competitor, and market dimensions are actually supported?
4. How are credits charged when one prompt is run across six engines, and do retries or failed scans consume credits?
5. Can the team edit, deduplicate, and segment generated prompts?
6. What model version, browser or API path, location, language, and refresh cadence were used?
7. Can GA4 and Search Console data be separated from AI answer observations and attributed referrals?
8. What do the API and MCP endpoints expose, and what are their rate limits, retention, and permissions?
9. What is included in the free report and seven-day trial, and when does automatic conversion occur?
10. Can one fixed prompt panel demonstrate a before/after change without changing the engine, market, or prompt wording?

Review evidence sources

• Rank Prompt — official product scope and named AI platforms.
• Rank Prompt pricing — current public plans, annual-equivalent prices, credits, and feature gates.
• Rank Prompt Terms — dated monthly pricing, trial conversion, credit economics, and cancellation/refund rules.
• Rank Prompt ecommerce — product and AI-shopping workflow claims.
• CheckThat.ai — small review-sample and directional market-feedback summary.
• EasyAI — self-reported hands-on review with disclosed testing context.
• Ecommerce Paradise — affiliate-disclosed ecommerce review; use for directional context only.

Last reviewed: September 16, 2026

Data confidence: Medium. Official product and pricing evidence is detailed and directly linkable, but the independent customer sample, methodology transparency, and causal outcome evidence remain limited.