AI visibility tracking with prompt insights, social proof monitoring, and GEO task generation
Public monthly prices make an initial evaluation easier than a fully quote-led platform.
Source review: · Public-source research, not a hands-on test
Growth and SEO teams that need an AI visibility baseline plus an action queue
Each public plan includes three selected engines from a four-engine list, and the independent evidence is review-platform feedback rather than outcome validation.
01 / Editorial assessment
Visby AI is a promising fit for teams that want a bridge between AI visibility measurement and an optimization backlog. The Starter and Growth plans make the commercial model easier to understand than quote-only enterprise platforms, while the prompt, answer-analysis, and domain limits give a buyer a concrete starting point for a proof of concept. Visby is worth evaluating when the team values an actionable GEO workflow and can work within its three-selected-engine, prompt-based public limits. It should not be purchased on the assumption that task generation proves future citations, traffic, conversions, or revenue.
02 / Scope, not promises
Select three from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts1 domain, 15 prompts, 45 AI answers analyzed/month, 1 seat
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts3 domains, 90 prompts, 270 AI answers analyzed/month, 3 seats
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick factsMeasure and improve brand visibility in AI-generated answers
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts$79/month for Starter
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts$199/month
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick factsThe product site and pricing page describe selected-engine brand tracking. The current pricing page names ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews, with three selected per plan; Starter includes 15 tracked prompts and 45 analyzed answers per month, while Growth includes 90 prompts and 270 analyzed answers per month. That allowance is enough for a focused baseline, but it can become restrictive when a team needs multiple markets, languages, competitors, and funnel stages. Buyers should ask whether a prompt means one saved question, whether repeated runs consume the same allowance, how answer analysis is counted, and whether the plan supports location or language variants.
Visby’s product positioning emphasizes identifying where competitors appear and where the brand is absent. This is useful for building a citation-gap or recommendation-gap workflow: The analysis should preserve the original prompt, model, date, and market. Without that context, a share-of-voice or visibility comparison can look more precise than the underlying sample supports.
Visby says it analyzes performance gaps and creates personalized GEO tasks, including content optimization and technical recommendations. This is the platform’s clearest workflow distinction from a tracker that only reports mentions. A useful task should identify the observed gap, the competing source or answer pattern, the proposed action, the owner, and the measurement signal. Buyers should inspect whether tasks are specific enough to execute or are generic suggestions such as “write more authoritative content.” They should also test whether the task links back to the actual answer and cited page that triggered it. Generated tasks are editorial inputs. They do not independently validate facts, establish search-engine causality, or guarantee that an AI model will change its answer after publication.
The public pricing page lists funnel-based content tracking on all three plans. This suggests a way to organize visibility work around awareness, consideration, and decision prompts rather than treating every query as equivalent. For example, a team can separate: The page does not publicly specify the full funnel taxonomy, attribution method, or reporting fields. Confirm how content is mapped to stages and whether the feature tracks page performance, answer mentions, or both.
Starter lists five article generations per month, Growth lists fifteen, and Enterprise lists twenty-five. These allowances make Visby more than a measurement-only product, but the public pages do not establish the full drafting workflow, editorial controls, source handling, or publishing integrations. Treat generated articles as drafts. A production review should check evidence, original insight, product claims, citations, accessibility, brand voice, and whether the article actually answers the tracked prompt. More content is not automatically more AI visibility, and publishing an unverified draft can introduce new factual problems.
03 / Commercial boundaries
Terms below reflect the 2026-09-30 source review, not a new live quote. Confirm currency, billing term, tax and required scope with the provider.
From $79/month for Starter; Growth is $199/month; Enterprise is quote-led. The current pricing page also offers a Start Free Trial link for Starter.
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · OverviewPublic scope: Entry AI visibility tracking and GEO optimization · Visible limits: Select 3 of 4 named engines; 1 domain; 15 prompts; 45 answers analyzed/month; 5 article generations/month; 1 seat; free-trial signup link · Price: $79/month
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Plans and pricingPublic scope: Broader monitoring, analytics, and guidance · Visible limits: Select 3 of 4 named engines; 3 domains; 90 prompts; 270 answers analyzed/month; 15 article generations/month; 3 seats · Price: $199/month
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Plans and pricingPublic scope: Larger monitoring program and expert support · Visible limits: Select 3 of 4 named engines; 5+ domains; 250+ prompts; 750+ answers analyzed/month; 25 article generations/month; expert GEO deep-dive and consultation · Price: Contact sales
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Plans and pricingThe pricing page currently links Starter to a free-trial signup, but it does not state the trial duration, included credits, or conversion terms. Treat the offer as access evidence, not a fully specified trial entitlement.
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · OverviewMonthly pricing is publicly displayed; cancellation terms say access continues through the current billing period
Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-30; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick factsThe official pricing page checked September 30, 2026 displays monthly pricing as follows:
| Plan | Public scope | Visible limits | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter | Entry AI visibility tracking and GEO optimization | Select 3 of 4 named engines; 1 domain; 15 prompts; 45 answers analyzed/month; 5 article generations/month; 1 seat; free-trial signup link | $79/month |
| Growth | Broader monitoring, analytics, and guidance | Select 3 of 4 named engines; 3 domains; 90 prompts; 270 answers analyzed/month; 15 article generations/month; 3 seats | $199/month |
| Enterprise | Larger monitoring program and expert support | Select 3 of 4 named engines; 5+ domains; 250+ prompts; 750+ answers analyzed/month; 25 article generations/month; expert GEO deep-dive and consultation | Contact sales |
The pricing page also says customers can cancel at any time without another charge and retain access through the current billing period. It does not publicly specify annual discounts, overage pricing, data-export limits, API pricing, or the duration and conversion terms of the Starter free trial. The homepage invites a personalized demo and says buyers can see GEO tasks in thirty minutes; that is a demo promise, not proof of a particular trial duration.
Starter is most defensible for a narrowly defined pilot: one domain, a small prompt set, and a team willing to manually validate tasks. Growth becomes more practical for multiple domains or a larger funnel panel, but the price increase should be justified by the extra prompt and answer capacity, not by assuming better model outcomes.
Enterprise may be appropriate when the buyer needs expert consultation or a larger workspace, but the commercial and operational terms must be negotiated. Ask for the total annual commitment, included engines, prompt and answer overages, seats, data retention, exports, security terms, support scope, and what the expert audit actually delivers.
04 / The tradeoffs
Each public plan includes three selected engines from a four-engine list, and the independent evidence is review-platform feedback rather than outcome validation.
05 / Choose by the job
Editorial fit comparisons—not performance rankings or claims that one option always wins.
Choose Visby if you want prompt monitoring connected to automated GEO tasks, funnel tracking, article generation, and social-proof signals. Choose Peec AI if you primarily want focused AI visibility analytics and prompt-level reporting, and prefer to keep content execution in another workflow.
Choose Visby if three-engine coverage is sufficient and turning visibility gaps into tasks is more important than a broader base-engine list. Choose Otterly.AI if you want a more established self-serve monitoring workflow with public entry pricing, brand reports, citation analysis, and a broader listed base set of AI surfaces.
Choose Visby if you are a growth or content team looking for a relatively compact monitoring-and-action workflow with public Starter and Growth prices. Choose Profound if you need enterprise-scale answer-engine intelligence, larger datasets, deeper reporting, or a broader platform evaluation process.
Choose Visby if AI visibility tasks and social-proof monitoring are central to the project. Choose Surfer SEO AI Tracker if your team already relies on Surfer’s content optimization workflow and wants AI visibility alongside that content system.
Choose Visby if the primary problem is measuring visibility and prioritizing GEO tasks across a small set of engines. Choose Writesonic GEO Suite if you want AI visibility features tightly coupled to a broader AI content creation and optimization platform.
06 / What we can substantiate
Independent feedback is limited to the archived sources below. No hands-on test or outcome benchmark was performed as part of this layout migration.
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.
| Source | Evidence type | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Visby official product page ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| Visby official pricing ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| G2 Visby AI reviews ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| Trustpilot Visby AI ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| FixAEO independent Visby review ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| Visby AI GEO tools comparison ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
Preserved from the published research. Dates, review counts and product-scope qualifications below have not been refreshed by this layout migration.
| Source | Public signal | What it supports | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visby official pricing | Starter $79/month; Growth $199/month; each plan selects 3 of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews; visible prompt, answer, domain, seat, article, and trial-signup limits | Current commercial scope and stated feature availability | High for displayed facts |
| Visby official product page | Describes tracking across ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, GEO tasks, funnel tracking, social proof, integrations, and vendor claims of 100+ G2 reviews and 60+ Trustpilot reviews | Vendor-positioned workflow and current social-proof claims; not independent adoption proof | Medium-high for positioning; low for outcomes |
| G2 Visby AI reviews | 4.8/5 from 108 reviews; visible reviews praise onboarding, dashboard clarity, task workflow, and actionable visibility insights; concerns include prompt volume, onboarding guidance, and interpreting GEO data | Directional usability and workflow signal | Medium-low; platform-hosted, seller-managed listing |
| Trustpilot Visby AI | 4.8/5 from 67 reviews; Trustpilot says its summary is AI-generated and notes the company has not recently invited reviews; visible feedback is mostly positive, with some comments about early roughness and task volume | Directional customer sentiment and recurring usability themes | Medium-low; review platform does not fact-check claims |
| FixAEO independent Visby review | Competitor-authored review scores Visby 3.6/5 and highlights the $79 entry price, narrow engine set, small Starter volume, and lack of a permanent free tier; it discloses the commercial conflict | Independent buying-context and limitations signal | Low-medium; competitor-authored and checked July 19, 2026 |
| Visby GEO tools comparison | Vendor-authored comparison describes prompt tracking, competitor gaps, task generation, and prices | Feature context and vendor framing | Low for neutral comparison; commercial bias disclosed |
The directly checked G2 listing reports 4.8/5 from 108 reviews, while Trustpilot reports 4.8/5 from 67 reviews. Visible themes include straightforward onboarding, a clear dashboard, actionable GEO tasks, competitor visibility, and practical content guidance. These signals support a cautious conclusion that the product is designed to reduce the manual work between measurement and prioritization. Trustpilot’s summary is AI-generated and the page says Visby has not recently invited reviews, so neither rating should be treated as a neutral population estimate.
They do not establish that the platform improves citations, rankings, traffic, pipeline, or revenue. The public review sample should also be checked again before publication because ratings, counts, and review visibility can change.
The checked G2 reviews mention the need for clearer guidance on advanced features and the limited prompt volume on lower tiers; other visible feedback discusses interpreting GEO data and the need to understand how models retrieve and weigh context. FixAEO’s competitor-authored review adds the concern that the three-engine scope, small Starter volume, and lack of a permanent free tier may be restrictive. These are meaningful buying limitations rather than proof that the product cannot work.
The other concern is evidence depth. The checked public sources do not provide a robust independent sample demonstrating task quality or downstream outcomes. Vendor-authored comparisons and customer quotes can identify intended workflows, but they are not neutral validation.
Visby’s strongest evidence supports a practical measurement-to-action workflow, not a proven optimization outcome. Treat the platform as an experiment-management and prioritization layer. Keep the prompt set stable, record the model and date, validate each task, and measure downstream results separately.
Last reviewed: September 30, 2026
Data confidence: Medium for public plan prices, displayed limits, and vendor-positioned features; low-to-medium for user feedback and task quality because the independently verified public sample remains limited.
Layout migration: October 4, 2026. The original MDX research is retained in the repository; this reorganization does not refresh its factual verification dates.