Compare
Dashboards measure. Eidomai does the work.
There are excellent tools in this category, and for the audiences they serve we would recommend several. Here is where each option fits, and where Eidomai is deliberately different: the measurement plus the hands that do the work.
See what AI says about my business Free. ChatGPT and Claude. No call required.
The short version. Flip it and we show our work: the method, the numbers, the sources. Site-wide, or one section at a time.
Why it is different
This is not another AI visibility score.
A score tells you a number went down. Eidomai tells you which question you lost, who took it, and what to publish to compete for it. Then a person checks every fact before it goes live, and the same question is asked again next month.
Real answers
We save what each engine actually said about you, word for word.
Real competitors
See who gets recommended when you do not, and why.
Real work
For the questions worth working on, a next step built from facts you confirmed: improve a page, add one, or correct a fact. Not one page per lost question.
Real proof
Same questions, same engines, next month. What moved, and what did not.
Dashboards measure. Eidomai closes the loop. Tools hand you numbers and leave. Agencies do work you cannot inspect. Eidomai is a loop you can watch turn, and it is identical for a four-location practice or a community foundation: the questions change, the loop does not. The same eight stages, every month, for any business. The whole process is published on How it works.
Can I do this myself? Yes. The process is on the portal and on this site. Most owners look at the eight stages and choose done for you, but the choice is yours and the price is different. See pricing and who cooks.
How do I know it works? Trend, never truth. Single-month moves are noise; flips take 60 to 90 days after indexing. The ledger shows every movement with the query named, and the outcomes report puts AI conversions next to what you pay Google Ads for the same conversion.
The landscape, in one table
What Eidomai does versus what they do.
Profound, Surfer, Peec AI and Otterly are strong products for the audiences they serve. This table exists so you can pick the right kind of help, including when that is not Eidomai.
| Dimension |  EidomaiBuilt by Nimbletoad | GEO agencies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What it is | A growth engine: the measurement is wired to a content pipeline. The questions worth working on become briefs, a brief becomes a page or a fix, it ships, and next month’s measurement grades it. The ledger, the fact file and the held questions compound every turn. | A monitoring platform. You see the numbers; the work happens elsewhere | A content editor with an AI tracker attached. The tracker and the editor are two products with a link between them | A monitoring dashboard. Charts of mentions, nothing to do next | A retainer. Work you cannot inspect, measured however the agency measures it |
| Built for | Local and specialty brands: healthcare practices, therapy, physical therapy, childcare, wineries and hospitality, hospice and home care, nonprofits, professional services | Fortune 500 and enterprise brands with in-house teams | Content teams and SEO writers; AI tracking added onto a content optimization suite | Marketing teams and SEO agencies that want to run their own dashboards | B2B, SaaS, and enterprise content programs |
| AI engines measured | Eight: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Copilot, Grok | Ten or more on enterprise plans; entry tiers track fewer | Five: ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Perplexity. No Claude, Copilot, or Grok | Three to seven, capped by plan; some engines cost extra | Varies with the tooling the agency licenses |
| What you actually see | A battle map: every buyer question scored on every engine, held or lost, with the engine’s verbatim answer as the receipt | Prompt dashboards, citation analytics, prompt volume data | Visibility score, mention rate, average position, share of voice, sentiment, citation sources. Daily refresh on higher plans | Prompt lists, mention charts, source breakdowns | Typically a monthly deck summarizing activity |
| Wrong-claim defense | Every factual claim AI makes about you is audited monthly, corrections are written and sent to the source, and a weekly watchdog catches new claims between audits | Sentiment and citation tracking; corrections are your job | Sentiment and mention gaps; accuracy auditing and corrections are not offered | Sentiment scoring on higher plans; corrections are your job | Not a standard deliverable |
| Who does the work | Your choice: you cook from the map, or we cook, where we write, you approve every word in the portal, and we publish. Teams with a writer can have us prep and cook themselves | You operate the platform; content tools on higher tiers | You operate the editor and write (or generate) the content yourself; “Optimize from AI Tracker” links a losing prompt to their editor | You operate the tool and do all optimization yourself | Agency does the work on retainer, usually enterprise-priced |
| Getting your name right | Your brand and its variants resolve to one entity, and so do your competitors. “Northshore Physical Therapy” and “Northshore PT” both count as you. A founder’s name is measured separately and reported beside your mention rate, never folded into it: we found that error in our own data and fixed it, because an answer that names the person who invented your field is not the same as an answer that names your organization. | Entity handling is not documented publicly; enterprise onboarding defines the brand set | Entities are auto-extracted per prompt. In a live account we ran, one client appeared as two competing brands, the top competitor was split sixteen ways, books and directories were counted as brands, and the founder was tracked as a rival to the institute she founded | Usually a single brand string you type in; variants are missed silently | Depends entirely on who set up the tracking |
| Whether the number holds still | Every engine gets every question multiple times each month, and any cell where the samples disagreed shows the count on the tile. Any cell that split, or that changed hands since last month, is asked again until it is at least five samples deep. A move only counts as confirmed when the answer held across that deeper set; anything shallower is shown as provisional and never counted as proof. In September that re-sampling retired 24 percent of the flips a three-sample read had claimed. | Enterprise sampling methodology is not published | Prompts are tracked over time; the per-run sample count and the spread are not surfaced in the report | Typically one pull per prompt per run, presented as a ranking | However the underlying tool does it, usually unstated |
| Whether you can act on it before next month | Paste a draft on the Briefs tab and get two scores before it ships: how human it reads and whether an answer engine can lift it. Mark the page shipped and the date lands on your trend chart. Spend a credit and the page’s questions are asked again that day on all eight engines. Pick five questions and they are re-asked every Monday. | Daily tracking on enterprise plans; content checks are a separate product | Content editor scores drafts against a ranking model; whether an engine named you is a separate tracker | Scheduled runs only; no draft check, no on-demand re-measure tied to a page | Depends on the agency’s own process; rarely tied to a measurement |
| What counts as a mention | Defined and printed where you can read it: the methodology card on every battle map states the questions, the sampling, the scoring rule, and the panel version. A mention, a citation, and a recommendation are scored as three separate things, because being named in passing is not the same as being the answer. | Metrics defined in product documentation; definitions differ from other tools, so scores are not comparable across them | Visibility score and share of voice computed by their own rules; not comparable to any other tool’s number | Every tool in this category defines a mention differently, and few publish the rule | Inherited from whatever tool the agency licenses, usually without stating it |
| What a cited source even is | A citation is a page the engine read, so a search result page or a shopping card is never counted as one, redirect links are resolved to the real source, and the rule that decides is versioned with a dated change log printed on the methodology card. | Citation analytics by source; normalization rules are internal | Cited domains listed as returned; no published rule on what is excluded | Whatever the engine returned, including result pages when they appear | Inherited from the tool |
| Whether a mention is even real | Engines can invent a brand into an answer without retrieving a single page about it. Our measurement runs with web search on, so answers arrive with the sources the engine actually pulled, the verbatim answer is kept as the receipt, and every factual claim is audited monthly against a fact file your business confirmed. An invented mention is never counted as a win. | Citation analytics show which sources were used; validating individual claims is your job | Mentions are counted as the engine reports them; there is no fact-validation step | Raw mention counts; a hallucinated mention counts the same as a real one | Depends on the analyst reading the report |
| Where the questions come from | We build the panel from the questions your buyers actually ask, drafted from your market and your competitors, then show you every one and let you propose more. | Prompt sets configured during enterprise onboarding | You supply the prompts | You supply the prompts | Whatever the agency decides, often invisible to you |
| Asked from your market | The same question asked from two cities returns two different answers. Where your questions are ambiguous about place, the request itself carries your market, so a San Marcos clinic is measured against San Marcos, California, never Texas. Every battle map states the market it was measured from. | Regional options on enterprise plans; per-market methodology not published | Location handling was not surfaced in the reports of the live account we ran | Usually one region per workspace, often unstated | Rarely disclosed |
| Month over month | The same question panel re-measured every month, so movement is real: share of voice, mention rate, recommended-first rate, wrong claims resolved, with a movement report tying published work to flipped cells. Trend, never truth. | Dashboards update continuously; you build the narrative | Prompts rechecked daily or weekly; trend depends on your prompt hygiene | Charts update; trend depends on your prompt hygiene | Reporting cadence and rigor vary by shop |
| Proof it mattered | Google Analytics joined to the visibility numbers: AI referral sessions and conversions reported next to the map, labeled a floor, not a total | GA4 integration on enterprise plans | Looker Studio reporting of visibility metrics; not joined to conversions | Rarely connected to outcomes | Revenue case studies at enterprise scale |
| Human review | A person reviews every question panel, every draft, and every correction before anything ships | Software, self-serve | Software, self-serve; AI-generated articles ship as fast as you click | Software, self-serve | Depends on the agency |
| Price posture | Two plans, prices printed on the site: Done for you (We Cook: a person at Eidomai looks at everything and helps you execute) and The map (You Cook, the software on its own). The map with review sits in between for teams with a writer, priced on the demo. Sized from a single practice to a regional group. | A self-serve entry tier, then enterprise by quote | Published tiers on annual billing, plus a standalone tracker | Low monthly tiers with seat and engine limits | Monthly retainers at enterprise scale |
Competitor details come from public vendor sites and published reviews as of July 2026 and may change; verify current offerings with each vendor. Logos belong to their owners.
The engines we ask, every month
ChatGPTPerplexityClaudeGeminiGrokGoogle AI OverviewsGoogle AI ModeCopilot
- Competitor rows
- Public vendor sites and published reviews as of July 2026
- Eidomai rows
- The published process on How it works, which is also the contract
- What is not here
- Prices for anyone but us. Vendors change theirs; ours are on Pricing
- Bias
- We built one of the columns. The table exists so you can pick the right kind of help, including when it is not us
Start where every engagement starts: a measurement.
Free check on ChatGPT and Claude. Confirm your email, get a link to your results; no call required. Want the full eight-engine walkthrough? Book a demo and it is ready before the call.
See what AI says about my business Free check: two engines, results by email, no call required. Demo: the full eight-engine map, ready before the call. You keep the results either way.
It starts with an eye. It ends with AI. Eidomai, by Nimbletoad.