Your buyers ask ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity before they call anyone. Every offer on this page answers one question about that reality — is my site readable, am I cited, why not, and how do I fix it — and every answer traces back to a documented, verified measurement.
Start anywhere. Most people start free, at the top of this page.
Checks whether your website is technically ready to be cited by AI engines: can the crawlers reach your content, is it structured for parsing, does the schema hold up, is it clear what each page is about. Scores one URL or up to 10 pages against the 36 factors we published — the same checklist our own site runs on.
Every AEO effort sits on top of this question. If AI crawlers can't read your site, your content doesn't exist to them — no article, no PR, no budget changes that. You cannot know your readiness by looking at your own site in a browser, because you're not seeing what a crawler sees.
It's free and it takes a minute. The only reason to skip it is preferring not to know.
For anyone with a website. Especially before spending a single euro on content.
Type a question your buyers actually ask. The tracker tests it across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity and shows whether each one mentions your brand, your competitors, or neither — with results in about 90 seconds. Run it in 3x mode and each prompt is tested three times, because a single run proves nothing: an answer that names you once is noise, an answer that names you every run is visibility.
A readiness score tells you whether you could be cited. This tells you whether you are — for the exact questions that form buyer shortlists. Checking manually in ChatGPT gives you one run, on your account, with your history shaping the answer. That's an anecdote, not a measurement.
Most companies testing their brand for the first time find zero citations. Five dollars is the cheapest way to learn whether you're one of them.
For marketers who want proof before a budget conversation.
The full diagnosis. Fifty questions built around your category, competitors, and buyer research patterns — not a generic prompt set — run repeatedly across the AI engines. Every citation is opened and checked against its source page. Every finding carries an evidence grade. You get the complete map: question by question, who gets cited, who doesn't, and where you sit.
It ends with the advise step: a prioritized roadmap — which questions are winnable, which pages to build or repair, in what order — walked through with us on a strategy call. Written so your team can execute it without us.
The tracker shows you a symptom. This is the diagnosis. One question tells you a fact; fifty tell you the pattern — and the pattern is what decides where your content budget should go. Without it, topic selection is guesswork, and you'll spend months writing for questions nobody wins while competitors keep the ones that convert.
The fee is credited toward any Fix engagement, so the diagnosis never costs extra if you continue.
For teams deciding where next quarter's content budget goes.
We implement the technical and structural items from your roadmap across the 36 factors: crawler access, schema, heading structure, semantic clarity, internal linking, freshness signals. Thirty days, defined scope, and at the end we re-run your measurement so the change is documented, not assumed.
Technical gaps are silent multipliers. Every article you publish onto a site with broken schema or blocked crawlers underperforms — not by a little, but invisibly and completely, because engines that can't parse a page can't cite it. These fixes sit in the gap between marketing and IT, which is exactly why they stay unfixed for quarters.
Each week the foundation stays broken is a week of content spend working at a discount.
For teams whose roadmap is full of items no one owns.
Monthly articles targeting the winnable questions from your citation map, produced through our write-then-check pipeline: written to an answer-first standard, then every factual claim verified against its live source before anything publishes. Unverifiable claims are removed, not footnoted. Ongoing tracking shows which target questions you're gaining.
AI engines cite pages that answer specific questions with claims they can verify. That content doesn't come from an ordinary blog cadence — it comes from knowing which questions to target and publishing answers that survive fact-checking. One published error costs more visibility than ten good articles earn, because engines cross-reference.
The site fixes make you citable. This is what actually gets you cited, month after month.
For teams that want the citation map executed, with proof.
Engines answer differently run to run. Every measurement repeats, on documented dates. Once is noise; repetition is visibility.
When an engine cites a page, we open it and check that it says what the engine claims. Unverified citations don't reach your report.
Every finding is labeled by proof strength — direct observation, repeated pattern, or hypothesis. We tell you which is which.
If a finding can't be traced to a documented run, it doesn't go in the report. Read the full methodology →
We pointed our own citation pipeline at revenueexperts.ai, published what it found — including the parts that didn't flatter us — and committed publicly to publishing the re-measurement, whichever way it goes. Every tool on this page is one we use on our own business first.
Case studies with client before/after data will appear here as engagements complete their re-measurement. We don't publish results we can't document.
The free audit, unless you already know your site is technically sound — then the $5 tracker. If you're planning next quarter's content budget, go straight to the Citation Audit; it includes everything the smaller steps would have told you.
No. Nobody can — the engines change, and anyone promising guaranteed citations is selling confidence they don't have. What we guarantee is the process: documented measurement before, verified execution during, and the same measurement after, so you know exactly what changed. That's also why the $997 is credited toward the fix — you never pay twice to find out where you stand.
Dashboards count mentions and hand you a number. We verify every citation against its source page, repeat every measurement, grade the evidence, and then actually do the fixing. A dashboard is a thermometer. This platform is a thermometer, a diagnosis, and the treatment — with a second reading at the end.
Yes. It's written for that, and the 36 factors behind it are published on this site. The Fix engagements exist for teams that want it done — and proven — without adding it to their own backlog.
That's the first question, and it's free to answer. Everything else on this page follows from what the data says.
Run the free audit