A·K
← All tools
The selection guideSource-backed research ↗
Analytics / AI visibility & analytics

Searchable

AI search visibility tracking with actionable content and technical recommendations

Visibility analytics
Why it stands out

Public entry pricing is easier to evaluate than quote-only platforms.

Source review: · Public-source research, not a hands-on test

↗ Best for

Growth-stage SaaS and ecommerce brands that need a baseline for AI visibility

! Know before you buy

Engine add-ons, sampling methodology, and outcome claims require careful verification; much of the strongest public evidence is vendor-provided or early-stage review feedback.

01 / Editorial assessment

Is Searchable for you?

The AICiteKit take

Searchable is a credible shortlist option for teams that want to move from “are we visible in AI search?” to “what should we investigate next?” The combination of prompt monitoring, competitor comparisons, site audits, content recommendations, and GA4/GSC connections can reduce the hand-off between measurement and execution. Choose Searchable when you need an approachable AI-search analytics layer with built-in optimization guidance and transparent entry pricing. Compare it with Peec AI for a more monitoring-focused growth workflow, Profound for enterprise intelligence, and AirOps when content automation is the primary requirement.

A good fit if you are…

  • Growth-stage SaaS and ecommerce brands that need a baseline for AI visibility
  • SEO, content, and demand-generation teams sharing responsibility for AI-search discoverability
  • Agencies managing multiple domains and client-ready reports
  • Teams that want to connect AI visibility observations to GA4 and Google Search Console
  • Marketers who need content briefs, site-health checks, or technical recommendations alongside monitoring

Consider another option if…

  • Organizations that require a complete public API, retention, quota, and sampling specification before evaluation
  • Teams needing deep log-file analysis rather than answer and site audits
  • Buyers who want a guaranteed rank, citation, recommendation, or revenue outcome
  • Very large global programs that need mature roles, SSO, audit trails, data residency, and procurement controls without a sales process
  • Teams looking only for a traditional content editor or only for schema validation

02 / Scope, not promises

Features & coverage

Pro scope

100 prompts per model across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity; 9,000 AI answers/month; 1 project; 12-month retention

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts
Scale scope

500 prompts across the same three named engines; 45,000+ AI answers/month

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts
Enterprise / Custom scope

Enterprise lists 1,250 prompts, 112,500 AI answers/month, unlimited projects, and $999+/month; Custom adds tailored model selection, prompt setup, API, and SSO

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts
Primary use case

Track and improve brand visibility, citations, and sentiment in AI search

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts
Public plans

Pro, Scale, Enterprise, Custom

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts
Public starting price

$125/month for Pro; annual billing is advertised at 20% off

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts

AI visibility and citation monitoring

The public pricing page describes standard-plan tracking across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity, while the homepage’s current positioning also names Claude and Microsoft Copilot. Searchable reports brand mentions, citations, visibility, share of voice, sentiment, and competitive position. Treat the homepage list as product positioning, not proof that every named engine is included in every plan. For a useful audit, preserve the underlying observation: A visibility percentage is directional. It is not a universal AI ranking, and it cannot prove that a user saw the answer or became a customer.

Archived research context ↗

Prompt intelligence and topic organization

Searchable’s public materials describe domain-based prompt generation and prompt research. This lowers setup effort, but automatically generated prompts are only useful when they reflect actual buyer language. A team should audit the proposed set for: The prompt panel is the measurement instrument. If it is too small, too generic, or biased toward branded questions, the resulting score can look precise while representing the wrong market.

Archived research context ↗

Competitor benchmarking

The platform compares a brand with selected competitors and presents visibility, share of voice, sentiment, and position trends. This is useful for identifying which alternatives appear in the same buyer questions and which topics are uncontested. Competitor selection needs editorial control. Automated suggestions may favor large, high-traffic domains instead of a company’s actual commercial competitors. Benchmarking also describes the sampled prompt universe; it does not establish market-wide leadership.

Archived research context ↗

AI agent and actionable recommendations

Searchable positions an AI agent as a layer that interprets visibility data, site health, and connected analytics. The public homepage describes content briefs, technical fixes, and strategic insights tailored to the brand. Treat recommendations as hypotheses requiring review. Before publishing generated content or code, check factual accuracy, source quality, accessibility, internal links, schema, legal claims, and brand voice. A recommendation that sounds plausible is not independent evidence that an AI engine will cite the resulting page.

Archived research context ↗

Technical AI-search audits

The public pricing page describes site audits for schema, content structure, and crawlability. This can help a team find pages whose machine-readable signals or information architecture are incomplete. Technical readiness has a clear boundary: fixing schema or crawlability can make information easier to process, but it does not guarantee retrieval, citation, recommendation, or inclusion in an answer. Validate fixes against server responses, rendered HTML, canonical URLs, robots directives, structured data, and the answer observations that motivated the change.

Archived research context ↗

03 / Commercial boundaries

Pricing & limits

Terms below reflect the 2026-09-21 source review, not a new live quote. Confirm currency, billing term, tax and required scope with the provider.

Pricing at a glance

Public Pro, Scale, Enterprise, and Custom plans. Pro is listed at $125/month, Scale at $400/month, and Enterprise at $999+/month; annual billing is advertised as 20% cheaper.

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Overview
Pro

Publicly described scope: Entry plan for teams serious about AI visibility · Visible limits: 100 prompts/model; 9,000 AI answers/month; 1 project; 20 articles/month; 200 audits; MCP and API access; 12-month retention · Public price: $125/month; annual billing advertised at 20% off

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Plans, pricing, and value
Scale

Publicly described scope: Higher-volume team and multi-brand workflow · Visible limits: 500 prompts; 45,000+ AI answers/month; unlimited domains; 80 articles/month; 1,000 audits; white-label reports; account specialist · Public price: $400/month; annual billing advertised at 20% off

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Plans, pricing, and value
Enterprise

Publicly described scope: Larger programs with a published price signal · Visible limits: 1,250 prompts; 112,500 AI answers/month; unlimited projects; 200 articles/month; 3,000 audits; white-label reports; Looker Studio; API access · Public price: $999+/month

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Plans, pricing, and value
Custom

Publicly described scope: Global programs and tailored integrations · Visible limits: Custom prompt tracking, model selection, custom setup, API, SSO, and custom frequency · Public price: Contact sales

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Plans, pricing, and value
Free access & trial

14-day Pro trial; the homepage says no credit card is required

Archived research · Research dated 2026-09-21; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts

Pricing context & qualifications

The official pricing page checked September 21, 2026 lists Pro, Scale, Enterprise, and Custom tiers and says prompts run daily across available AI models. That is a refresh rule for the service, not a promise that every engine is available on every tier:

PlanPublicly described scopeVisible limitsPublic price
ProEntry plan for teams serious about AI visibility100 prompts/model; 9,000 AI answers/month; 1 project; 20 articles/month; 200 audits; MCP and API access; 12-month retention$125/month; annual billing advertised at 20% off
ScaleHigher-volume team and multi-brand workflow500 prompts; 45,000+ AI answers/month; unlimited domains; 80 articles/month; 1,000 audits; white-label reports; account specialist$400/month; annual billing advertised at 20% off
EnterpriseLarger programs with a published price signal1,250 prompts; 112,500 AI answers/month; unlimited projects; 200 articles/month; 3,000 audits; white-label reports; Looker Studio; API access$999+/month
CustomGlobal programs and tailored integrationsCustom prompt tracking, model selection, custom setup, API, SSO, and custom frequencyContact sales

At the monthly list prices, Pro is about $1.25 per tracked prompt slot and Scale is about $0.80 per slot, but that comparison is only illustrative: answer volume, refresh behavior, domains, content output, and engine add-ons also affect value. It should not be treated as a standardized industry cost metric.

The public page says annual billing saves 20%. Buyers should confirm whether the discount applies to all add-ons, whether unused answer capacity rolls over, and what happens to prompt history when moving between tiers. Also confirm whether custom engines, additional seats, implementation, CMS exports, API access, and white-label features are included or separately priced.

Value assessment

  • Pro: Reasonable starting point for one team that can work within 100 prompts per model and the three named standard engines.
  • Scale: More suitable for agencies or teams with multiple topic clusters and higher reporting volume; the white-label capability matters more than raw prompt count for client work.
  • Enterprise/Custom: Appropriate only after a written specification of engine coverage, quotas, integrations, retention, support, SSO, and SLA terms.

The 14-day Pro trial is useful, but a two-week trial is too short to prove durable visibility movement. Use it to verify data capture, prompt quality, exports, and workflow fit—not to promise an outcome from a small early sample.

04 / The tradeoffs

Strengths & weaknesses

Reasons to shortlist

  • Public entry pricing is easier to evaluate than quote-only platforms.
  • Standard plan descriptions name three important AI-search surfaces.
  • Visibility monitoring is paired with competitor analysis, audits, and recommendations.
  • GA4 and GSC connections can help teams investigate referral and performance context.
  • Multi-domain, white-label, and CMS workflows can fit agency operations.

Reasons to pause

  • Claude, Copilot, Grok, and DeepSeek coverage is described as custom/add-on rather than uniformly included.
  • Public pages do not fully specify sampling methodology, model versions, retention, or API fields.
  • AI-generated recommendations and content still require editorial and technical review.
  • Early trend lines can be noisy; a short trial cannot establish causal business impact.
  • Competitor suggestions may need manual correction.

Engine add-ons, sampling methodology, and outcome claims require careful verification; much of the strongest public evidence is vendor-provided or early-stage review feedback.

05 / Choose by the job

Alternatives to consider

Editorial fit comparisons—not performance rankings or claims that one option always wins.

Another direction / 01

Profound ↗

Choose Searchable if public entry pricing, guided recommendations, and a shorter path from finding to action matter most. Choose Profound if enterprise-scale AI-search intelligence, competitive research, and broader procurement support are more important. Verify both products’ actual engine, prompt, geography, and retention coverage before comparing headline features.

Another direction / 02

Peec AI ↗

Choose Searchable if you want a more explicit content and technical optimization layer alongside visibility data. Choose Peec AI if your priority is a focused monitoring and insight workflow with a different balance of prompts, reporting, and pricing. Neither platform’s visibility score should be treated as a causal revenue metric.

Another direction / 03

Otterly.ai ↗

Choose Searchable if audits, AI-agent recommendations, analytics integrations, and CMS-oriented execution are central. Choose Otterly.ai if you prefer a focused visibility and citation-monitoring workflow. Compare prompt volume and engine coverage by plan rather than comparing only the free-trial language.

Another direction / 04

AirOps ↗

Choose Searchable if AI-search measurement and optimization are the center of the program. Choose AirOps if content automation, briefs, and scaled publishing are the primary need and AI visibility is an adjacent capability. Searchable’s public comparison is vendor-authored, so validate claims with the same test prompts and output requirements.

Another direction / 05

Conductor ↗

Choose Searchable if transparent entry pricing and a specialized AI-search workflow are more valuable than a broad enterprise SEO suite. Choose Conductor if AEO needs to sit beside large-scale SEO, website monitoring, reporting governance, and technical operations. A crawler or SEO integration is not the same as answer visibility.

06 / What we can substantiate

Reviews & evidence

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.

Sources & original verification dates

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.

Evidence snapshot

SourcePublic signalWhat it supportsConfidence
Searchable homepageCurrent page names ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Microsoft Copilot; also advertises a 14-day no-card Pro trial and vendor-reported success figuresProduct positioning, trial offer, and vendor-selected outcome claimsHigh for the page text; not independent
Searchable pricingLists Pro at $125/month, Scale at $400/month, Enterprise at $999+/month, Custom, prompt/answer/project limits, model boundaries, retention, 20% annual-billing savings, and daily monitoringCurrent public pricing, plan boundaries, retention, and refresh claimHigh for the page snapshot; plan-level sampling still needs confirmation
G2 Searchable reviewsLive page showed 4.8/5 from 101 reviews; visible reviews praise clear visibility reporting and onboarding while noting refresh latency, limited engine coverage, and early product maturityDirectional usability and satisfaction signal plus concrete concernsMedium-low; review platform and seller-invited reviews are not causal evidence
Prompt Insider hands-on reviewReports a Pro trial with 50 prompts, dashboards, audits, and GA4/GSC connections; discloses affiliate links and untested paid enginesIndependent workflow observations and limitationsMedium-low; affiliate disclosure and limited test scope
Searchable vs ProfoundVendor comparison states Searchable starts at $125/month and emphasizes actionable guidancePositioning and current vendor comparisonLow for comparative superiority
Searchable customersVendor-selected success stories report visibility and pipeline outcomesExamples of claimed implementationsLow for independent efficacy

Recurring positive themes

The directly checked G2 page showed 4.8/5 from 101 reviews. Visible reviews praise the clarity of AI-visibility reporting, onboarding, and the usefulness of competitor comparisons. The hands-on Prompt Insider review describes low-friction onboarding, generated prompts that can be reviewed before activation, and a dashboard that makes competitor comparison easy to scan.

These signals support a cautious usability conclusion: Searchable may shorten the path from setup to a first AI-visibility baseline. They do not prove that the platform improves citations, rankings, traffic, leads, or revenue.

Recurring concerns and tradeoffs

The public review evidence identifies smaller but relevant concerns: a learning curve as new features appear, occasional slow loading, delayed refreshes, limited engine coverage, inadequate tutorials, and perceived cost. The independent review did not test paid engine add-ons, agency multi-project workflows, or the internal tracking methodology.

Because the product is relatively new, buyers should treat feature velocity as both an advantage and a risk. The current homepage and pricing page also describe engine coverage differently, so confirm that the workflow and reports required for a long-term program are documented rather than only demonstrated in a sales call.

Evidence interpretation

The evidence supports the following:

  • Searchable exists and publicly offers a visibility-monitoring and optimization workflow.
  • The public Pro, Scale, and Enterprise prices and many usage allowances can be checked before a trial.
  • Users and one hands-on reviewer report that the interface and recommendations are understandable.
  • Searchable can be evaluated through a short trial before purchase.

The evidence does not establish:

  • Guaranteed AI citations, recommendations, rankings, or traffic
  • Incremental pipeline or revenue caused by Searchable
  • Equal accuracy across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and custom engines
  • A universal “AI rank” independent of prompt, model, locale, time, and sampling choices
  • Independent validation of every audit, content, or agent recommendation

What to verify during a trial or sales process

  1. Compare a fixed set of manually checked prompts with Searchable’s captured answers.
  2. Confirm the engine, model/surface, country, language, timestamp, and refresh schedule for every result.
  3. Export one visibility report and inspect whether raw answer, citation URL, prompt, and methodology are retained.
  4. Test one branded, one category, one comparison, and one alternative prompt cluster.
  5. Check whether the AI agent distinguishes observed evidence from inferred recommendations.
  6. Connect GA4/GSC with a test property or limited permissions and verify imported fields and attribution logic.
  7. Ask for add-on prices and limits for Claude, Copilot, Grok, DeepSeek, additional domains, users, and API access.
  8. Re-run unchanged prompts after a delay; do not interpret one run as a stable trend.

Primary sources

Independent and review-platform sources

  • G2 Searchable reviews — 4.8/5 from 101 reviews checked September 21, 2026; visible review themes are directional, include seller-invited reviews, and cover the product broadly.
  • Prompt Insider hands-on review — disclosed affiliate relationship; tested a Pro account with 50 prompts, dashboards, audits, and GA4/GSC, but not paid engine add-ons or agency workflows.

Verification boundary

Research checked September 21, 2026. The current pricing page materially clarifies the plan ladder: Pro, Scale, Enterprise, and Custom, with Enterprise displayed at $999+/month and retention varying by plan. Public pages can change, especially prices, quotas, engine availability, refresh rules, and review counts. Official pages are the strongest evidence for current vendor-stated features and pricing. The homepage and pricing page still differ in how they present engine availability; this profile preserves that discrepancy rather than treating the broader homepage list as plan entitlement. G2 and the hands-on review provide directional usability evidence, not proof of causal SEO, citation, traffic, pipeline, or revenue outcomes. Buyers should preserve the exact prompt, engine, market, answer, citation, timestamp, and change history when evaluating Searchable.

Research notes & unresolved discrepancies
  • This page reorganizes previously published research. It is not a fresh price check or a hands-on test. Refer to source-specific dates and qualifications in the research context below.

Layout migration: October 4, 2026. The original MDX research is retained in the repository; this reorganization does not refresh its factual verification dates.