How GEO tools compare on content gap identification
A content gap in AI search is a question your buyers ask an AI assistant where your brand never shows up, or shows up wrong. Generative engine optimization (GEO) tools hunt for four versions of that problem, and most are built for one. AthenaHQ and Goodie AI look for data voids that push models into inventing facts. Evertune works at the attribute level. GeoVector maps coverage to buyer journey stages and tracks which sources AI cites. Entry pricing runs from free to $800 a month, but the prompt and engine limits matter more than the headline.
What counts as a content gap in AI search
Generative engine optimization is the practice of getting your brand cited inside AI-generated answers. A content gap, in that setting, is any buyer question where the answer arrives without you in it.
That definition is broader than the keyword gap you know from search. Four failures look identical in a dashboard and need completely different fixes:
- You are absent. The model answers the question and names five competitors instead of you.
- You are wrong. The model names you, then quotes pricing you retired last year.
- You are off-message. The model names you accurately, but for the one feature you do not want to compete on.
- Nothing points to you. You published the right page, and no assistant ever cites it.
Most tools are built to catch one of these. The fourth gets the least attention and is often the cheapest to fix, so it is worth understanding before you buy anything.
Your SEO tool probably tracks AI now. That is not the same as finding gaps
A common claim in this category is that traditional SEO platforms cannot see AI answers at all. As of 2026, that claim is out of date. Semrush sells an AI Visibility Toolkit at $99 a month. [1] Ahrefs bundles Brand Radar into its standard plans, and it indexes over 162 million AI Overviews and more than 100 million queries across ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity. [5]
Check the limits before you assume you are covered. The Semrush toolkit is an add-on priced per domain, and $99 buys one domain and 25 tracked prompts. [1]
So the incumbents can tell you whether you appeared. That is detection, and detection is now close to a commodity.
Diagnosis is the harder half. Knowing you lost the prompt "best project management tool for remote teams" tells you nothing about why, or what to publish next. The tools worth paying for answer the second question, and they disagree sharply about how.
Read the rest of this comparison with that split in mind. Ask any vendor what its output is when a gap is found: a chart, a ranked list of prompts, or a brief you can hand to a writer.
The gap most comparisons skip: sources
Assistants do not invent recommendations from nothing. They cite pages. If no page that mentions you is worth citing for a given question, you cannot win that question, however much content you publish.
This produces two problems that mention-counting cannot see.
The first is the dark page. You wrote the definitive guide, it answers the prompt, and no assistant has ever quoted it. The page is not missing. Its citation record is.
The second is the competitor-only domain. A trade publication or review site gets cited constantly for your category, and every citation names someone else. That is not a content gap on your site. It is a gap in where your brand appears on other people's sites.
Both are cheaper to close than the alternative. Fixing a dark page is a revision. Winning a competitor-only domain is an email. Neither requires a new content program.
What GeoVector tracks, and what it does not
GeoVector organizes prompts into three buyer journey stages, Discovery, Research and Decision, and reports brand share against each one. [9] The point is prioritization. A gap where buyers ask "what is this category" is worth less than a gap where they ask "which vendor should I pick".
The prompt library combines four sources: curated industry prompts mapped to journey stages, your own custom prompts, queries imported from Google Search Console, and persona-generated scenarios. [9] The Search Console route matters for gap hunting. It grounds your prompt set in questions people already ask you, rather than a list someone invented in a workshop.
You can import or export the whole library by CSV. Each tracked prompt is sent to the selected assistants and its response is retained as evidence. [9] Drill into a prompt to see exactly where you win, lose, or are absent. [9]
The measurement underneath is not a mention count. Brand share weights mention position, since earlier citations signal stronger preference, and deduplicates repeated mentions inside one sentence. [13] When several brands appear together, share is split between them. [13] Weighted moving averages then smooth the non-determinism of AI systems, so a change reads as a trend rather than random variance. [13]
On the source problem above, citation analysis splits into three views. [6] Owned shows which of your pages assistants cite most, ranked by a Citation Score. That score combines position weighting, where URLs cited earlier in a response carry more weight, and citation length. [6] Earned shows which third-party domains cite you. Outreach Opportunities lists domains AI cites for your competitors but not for you, sorted by how many prompts they affect. [6] [7] Expand a domain and you get the exact pages winning those citations. [7]
The loop closes at publishing. Opportunities become briefs and drafts, approved work moves into Webflow, LinkedIn or CMS publishing, and published articles re-enter measurement with citation totals, cited prompts and assistant distribution. [8] The library also accepts articles written elsewhere, so external content enters the same measurement loop. [8]
Now the limits, because they matter more than the feature list. GeoVector does not do hallucination detection or data void analysis. If your problem is that assistants state wrong facts about you, the tools in the next section are built for that and this one is not. It also does not do attribute-level message analysis of the kind covered further down.
We build this product, so discount the paragraphs above accordingly and test the claims against your own prompts.
Data voids: when the model invents your facts
Goodie AI's Optimization Hub lets brand managers find specific "Data Voids" where AI models may be inventing facts because verified information is missing. [3] This is the second failure mode, and it is the one most teams underestimate.
AthenaHQ pushes further into remediation. Beyond reporting, it uses autonomous agents to help fix content gaps. [3] If it detects that Perplexity cites outdated pricing, its Action Center can draft a schema-optimized correction. [3]
Think about what that failure costs. An absent brand loses a deal it never knew about. A misrepresented brand actively sends buyers the wrong number, and it does so with the model's authority behind it. Retired prices, merged product tiers and old support policies are the usual culprits.
AthenaHQ has a free Essential plan covering 300 credits across five models. [12] Its Starter plan is $295 a month for 3,600 credits, where one credit is one AI response checked. [12] That free tier is a cheap way to test whether wrong facts are your problem.
Message gaps: the right brand, the wrong story
Evertune works at a level almost nobody else does. Semrush's roundup describes it as offering attribute-level analysis, to discover which product benefits AI models emphasize or overlook, plus message gap detection. [1]
Here is why that matters. Suppose your product wins on its integration ecosystem, and every model that mentions you leads with your price. You are visible. You are accurate. You are still losing, because the model is selling a version of you that competes on the axis where you are weakest.
No presence tracker catches this. Your mention count looks healthy the whole time.
Evertune publishes no pricing on its own site and sells through demos. [14] The $800 a month figure in the table below comes from Semrush's roundup, so treat it as indicative rather than quoted. [1]
Check which engines your money actually buys
You cannot find a gap on an engine you do not track. Entry tiers make that harder than the headline price suggests, and this is the detail most comparisons leave out.
Profound's $99 Starter tracks ChatGPT and nothing else, across 50 prompts. [10] Its $399 Growth plan covers three answer engines at 100 prompts. [10] Otterly's $29 Lite covers four engines, ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Copilot, but only 15 prompts, and Claude, Gemini and Google AI Mode are sold as separate add-ons. [11]
GeoVector makes the same trade at the bottom. The free plan tracks 25 prompts on one engine, and Starter at $199 covers 200 prompts on two. [2] All 6 assistants arrive at Growth, which is $499 a month for 500 prompts. [2] If you want breadth on a small prompt set, Otterly is cheaper. If you want depth on a large prompt set, the maths runs the other way.
The question worth asking is which assistants your buyers actually use, then checking that the tier you are quoted covers them. A tool that never queries Gemini cannot tell you that you are invisible there.
What each price tier actually buys
Entry pricing across the category spans more than an order of magnitude. The split is not really about quality. It tracks which of the four failure modes a tool was built to catch, and how much tracking you get for the money.
| Tool | Entry price | Prompts | Engines at entry | Gap it looks for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeoVector | Free, then $199/mo [2] | 25, then 200 | 1, then 2 | Journey-stage coverage and citation sources |
| Otterly.ai | $29/mo [11] | 15 | 4 | Citation and mention monitoring |
| Peec AI | ~$95/mo [1] [4] | 50 | 3 | Multi-brand prompt tracking |
| Profound | $99/mo [10] | 50 | 1 (ChatGPT) | Real-user prompt intelligence |
| Semrush AI Visibility | $99/mo [1] | 25 | Bundled suite | Presence inside an SEO suite |
| AthenaHQ | Free, then $295/mo [12] | 300, then 3,600 credits | 5, then 9 | Data voids and factual corrections |
| Evertune | ~$800/mo [1] | Not published | Not published | Message and attribute gaps |
Two cautions on that table. Prices and limits move fast in this category, so check the vendor's page before you budget. Several vendors also sell individual engines as add-ons, which changes the real cost once you cover the assistants you care about.
Match the spend to the failure you actually have. Pay $29 for monitoring if you only need to know whether you appear. Pay $295 when wrong facts are costing you deals. Pay for breadth when your buyers are spread across assistants you cannot currently see.
Frequently asked questions
Can my existing SEO tool find AI content gaps?
It can find some. Semrush's AI Visibility Toolkit is $99 a month for one domain and 25 tracked prompts. [1] Ahrefs bundles Brand Radar into standard plans, indexing over 162 million AI Overviews and 100 million assistant queries. [5] Both are strong at detection. They are weaker at telling you what to publish next, which is where dedicated GEO platforms compete.
What is the difference between a keyword gap and a content gap in AI search?
A keyword gap is a term you do not rank for. A content gap in AI search covers four failures: absence, wrong facts, wrong emphasis and missing citations. Evertune is described as targeting the third, through attribute-level analysis of which product benefits models emphasize or overlook. [1] A tool that only counts mentions cannot see it.
How do I find out which sources AI cites instead of me?
Look for a citation view that separates your own pages from third-party domains. GeoVector splits this into Owned, Earned and Outreach Opportunities, with the last listing domains AI cites for competitors but not for you, sorted by prompts affected. [6] [7] You can also do it by hand: run your prompts, collect every cited URL, and count which domains recur without you.
How do I know if an AI model is stating wrong facts about my brand?
Look for tools that name this job explicitly. Goodie AI's Optimization Hub finds "Data Voids" where models may invent facts because verified information is missing. [3] AthenaHQ's Action Center can draft a schema-optimized correction when it detects outdated pricing being cited, and its free Essential plan covers 300 credits across five models. [3] [12]
Why do two tools report different visibility for the same brand?
Because they measure differently, and because they query different engines. A raw mention count and a position-weighted share will disagree on the same response. GeoVector weights position, deduplicates repeated mentions in a sentence, splits share between co-mentioned brands, and applies weighted moving averages to smooth AI non-determinism. [13] Always check what the number counts before comparing two dashboards.
What does a GEO tool cost to start?
Which gap should I fix first?
Fix wrong facts first, because they cost you deals you are otherwise winning. Fix citations second, since a revision or an email is cheaper than a content program. Fix absence third and emphasis last. Score a sample of your own prompts against the four failure types to see which one you have.
Ready to see which prompts you are losing? Start with the assistants your buyers use, and check who gets cited instead of you.
Sources
- semrush.com: GEO tool pricing for Peec AI and Evertune, the Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit at $99 a month, and Evertune attribute-level and message gap analysis.
- geovector.ai: GeoVector plan contents, credits, answer engines and prices.
- yotpo.com: Goodie AI Optimization Hub data voids; AthenaHQ autonomous agents and Action Center corrections.
- pepper.inc: GEO platform pricing guide, July 2026, covering AthenaHQ, Peec AI, Otterly.ai and Profound tiers.
- ahrefs.com: Brand Radar coverage of AI Overviews, AI Mode, ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity.
- geovector.ai: Owned, Earned and Outreach citation views; Citation Score position weighting and citation length.
- geovector.ai: Domains AI cites for competitors but not you, ranked by prompts affected, with URL-level detail.
- geovector.ai: Opportunity to research, blueprint, draft, publishing and citation measurement loop.
- geovector.ai: Buyer journey stages, four prompt sources, CSV import and export, retained response evidence.
- tryprofound.com: Profound Starter at $99 for ChatGPT and 50 prompts; Growth at $399 for three answer engines and 100 prompts.
- otterly.ai: Otterly Lite at $29 for 15 prompts across four engines, with Claude, Gemini and AI Mode as add-ons.
- athenahq.ai: Free Essential plan with 300 credits across five models; Starter at $295 for 3,600 credits, one credit per AI response.
- geovector.ai: Position-weighted brand share, deduplication, share splitting between co-mentioned brands, weighted moving averages.
- evertune.ai: Evertune positioning and demo-led sales, with no published pricing.