AIScan ↗
Pay-per-use AEO/GEO, agent, MCP, and brand-visibility audits are more useful than a recurring plan.
← All toolsAnother direction / 01 Another direction / 02 Another direction / 03
The selection guideSource-backed research ↗
AI Search Monitoring / AI visibility and technical website audit platform
Website Auditor
Free AI visibility audits that ask ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity whether they recommend your business
AI visibility measurementTechnical website auditingGEO and AEO diagnosticsAPI and MCP reporting
Why it stands out
Free no-account entry point and direct checks across four named assistants.
Source review: · Public-source research, not a hands-on test
↗ Best for
Small and mid-sized businesses wanting a free answer to whether assistants name them.
! Know before you buy
No checked independent source validates score calibration, representative prompts, repeatability, customer satisfaction, citation lift, traffic, or revenue outcomes.
01 / Editorial assessment
Is Website Auditor for you?
The AICiteKit take
Website Auditor is a useful candidate for a dated AI-search baseline because it asks four named assistants directly rather than inferring visibility only from technical readiness. Its official AI Visibility Index publishes a sizeable vendor-run sample, audit windows, denominator rules, source matching, and uncertainty treatment. The evidence is still stronger for current scope, workflow, pricing, and published method than for efficacy: no checked independent source validates calibration, repeatability, customer satisfaction, citation lift, traffic, or revenue outcomes. Pilot it with saved raw reports and manual answer review.
A good fit if you are…
- Small and mid-sized businesses wanting a free answer to whether assistants name them.
- Agencies establishing a prospect baseline before proposing GEO or technical SEO work.
- Developers needing a documented REST API or MCP path for internal reporting.
Consider another option if…
- Enterprises requiring SSO, contractual SLAs, dedicated retention controls, or procurement documentation.
- Teams seeking white-label portals, content briefs, citation outreach, or full-funnel attribution.
- Buyers requiring an independently replicated AI-search ranking standard.
- Markets needing documented language, country, or model-version coverage beyond the public pages.
02 / Scope, not promises
Features & coverage
- Direct AI checks
Official pages name ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity and describe asking buying-intent questions directly.
Archived research · Official AI Website Audit and study checked 2026-10-30Research excerpt · Direct AI-visibility checks- Published study sample
The October 10, 2026 edition reports 2,552 audits across 1,250 domains and 96 sectors; one section reports 35,233 assistant answers.
Archived research · Official AI Visibility Index checked 2026-10-30Research excerpt · Evidence snapshot- API limits
The API page lists 10 audits, 10 custom AI-visibility queries, and 10 comparisons per API key per day, using separate counters.
Archived research · Official API documentation checked 2026-10-30Research excerpt · Pricing, limits, and platform coverage- Evidence boundary
No checked independent source validates score calibration, representative prompts, repeatability, customer satisfaction, citation lift, traffic, or revenue outcomes.
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-30Research excerpt · What the evidence does not prove
Direct assistant measurement
Ask named assistants buying-intent questions and record which businesses and sources appear, rather than treating technical readiness as proof of visibility.
Technical context
Combine AI-answer observations with robots.txt, sitemap, schema, metadata, security, performance, broken-link, and form checks.
Methodology and uncertainty
Use the vendor-published study's answer windows, denominator rules, source matching, and 90% Wilson interval disclosures to frame results cautiously.
API and MCP
Use the documented REST API and MCP server for reporting, while validating authentication, limits, retention, and exports in a pilot.
A focused evaluation workflow
- Run the free scan with a fixed business name, URL, and location.
- Save the raw assistant answers, cited URLs, technical findings, and timestamp.
- Pilot Pro API/MCP only after validating authentication, rate limits, retention, and output parity.
- Repeat identical tests and compare with analytics and human review before making outcome claims.
03 / Commercial boundaries
Pricing & limits
Terms below reflect the 2026-10-30 source review, not a new live quote. Confirm currency, billing term, tax and required scope with the provider.
- Free entry
The FAQ says a free scan needs no account or credit card.
Archived research · Official FAQ checked 2026-10-30Research excerpt · Pricing, limits, and platform coverage- Pro pricing
Pro is listed at $49/month after a 7-day free trial; payment method is required to start the trial.
Archived research · Official AI Website Audit and API pages checked 2026-10-30Research excerpt · Pricing, limits, and platform coverage
Additional costs & usage boundaries
Include the usage components listed above in the total cost; they are not separate flat software subscriptions.
Your buying checklist
Get these answers first.
- Which model versions, regions, languages, and web-search settings are used for the four assistant checks?
- What exact prompt set, business-name matching, and denominator rules apply to my market?
- How long are reports and raw answers retained, and what export or deletion controls exist?
- Does the API/MCP expose the same findings, sources, and uncertainty information as the web report?
Pricing context & qualifications
The official FAQ and AI Website Audit pages list a free no-account scan and Pro at $49/month after a 7-day trial. The API page lists separate daily limits of 10 audits, 10 custom AI-visibility queries, and 10 comparisons per API key.
04 / The tradeoffs
Strengths & weaknesses
Reasons to shortlist
- Free no-account entry point and direct checks across four named assistants.
- Published methodology exposes sample windows, denominator exclusions, source matching, and uncertainty intervals.
- Combines answer observations with crawler, markup, security, performance, and broken-link checks.
- Public REST API and MCP documentation support developer-led workflows.
Reasons to pause
- The study and scoring system are vendor-operated and have not been independently replicated.
- Self-selected domains and configured prompts may not represent broader AI-search demand.
- Results are sensitive to assistant, model, region, language, business name, location, and question wording.
- No checked independent review sample proves customer satisfaction, score calibration, or citation lift.
- Public materials do not fully specify language coverage, retention, model versions, SLA, white-label features, or refunds.
No checked independent source validates score calibration, representative prompts, repeatability, customer satisfaction, citation lift, traffic, or revenue outcomes.
05 / Choose by the job
Alternatives to consider
Editorial fit comparisons—not performance rankings or claims that one option always wins.
Cheap Seats ↗
Self-hosting and operator-controlled prompt experiments are the priority.
Sitefire ↗
An action-oriented managed workflow for improving AI visibility is preferred.
06 / What we can substantiate
Reviews & evidence
Public evidence is stronger for product scope, published methodology, pricing, and API boundaries than for efficacy or customer satisfaction.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Website Auditor AI Website Audit ↗ | Official product page | |
| Website Auditor API documentation ↗ | Official API documentation and pricing | |
| Website Auditor AI Visibility Index ↗ | Official vendor-published study and methodology | |
| Website Auditor FAQ ↗ | Official FAQ and commercial terms | |
| Website Auditor changelog ↗ | Official product updates | |
| Show HN: Website Auditor — Test your brand's AI visibility ↗ | Independent launch discussion | |
| Website Auditor on Product Hunt ↗ | Independent product listing; bot-protected during checking | |
| Website Auditor MCP repository ↗ | Public integration artifact and release history |
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.
Medium confidence for product identity, named assistant scope, published method, pricing, and API boundaries; low confidence for score calibration, independent repeatability, customer satisfaction, citation lift, traffic, and revenue outcomes.
Research notes & unresolved discrepancies
- The AI Visibility Index is vendor-operated and uses self-selected audit domains; its sample size does not make it an independent benchmark.
- Hacker News and Product Hunt are independent discovery sources, but neither was treated as evidence that the product's scores are accurate.
- Product Hunt was bot-protected during direct checking; the official site links the listing, so it remains a bounded discovery reference only.
Layout migration: October 4, 2026. The original MDX research is retained in the repository; this reorganization does not refresh its factual verification dates.