Praised is the GEO platform that answers what comes after the rate every tool reports — whether it moved, what moved it, and what to publish next.
The four questions a rate cannot answer
Answering these is the whole product. Counting is the easy half.
Category norms as of August 2026. Tools evolve — treat this as a checklist for evaluating any of them, including us.
| What you get | Visibility trackers | Praised |
|---|---|---|
| Mention, citation and recommendation tracking across the major engines | Yes | Yes |
| Every engine on every plan — no surface withheld from the cheapest tier | Rare — how many engines you get is a common tier lever | Yes — all six, on Free and up. Credits are the only limit |
| Confidence intervals on every number — so you can tell movement from noise | Rare | Yes, on every headline rate |
| A prioritised fix queue — findings become tracked work | Usually not | Yes, and it closes only on a passing re-check |
| Agents that do the work — not just report on it | Increasingly common | Yes — 40 tools on your own measurement, three autonomy modes you pick per run |
| Every automated action priced first and traced after | Rare | Yes — an estimate before the credit is spent, and a proposal is never logged as a completed action |
| Content production — verified facts into GEO-scored, publishable pages | Usually not | Yes, scored 0–100 before it ships |
| Corrections — drafted requests for wrong facts on pages you do not own | Usually not | Yes, verified by re-reading the page |
| Experiments — baseline, change, treatment, attributed lift | Usually not | Yes, with the null results reported too |
| A published score formula — the arithmetic behind the headline number, so you can recompute it | Rare | Yes — 0.4 share of voice + 0.4 mention rate + 0.2 recommendation |
| A self-serve API and MCP server — a key you create yourself, not a sales conversation | Commonly enterprise-only, and often behind a support request | Yes — REST API and a 15-tool MCP server on every paid plan, key minted in Settings |
| Published methodology, including its limits and the calibration behind them | Varies — usually a description of the method, rarely its error rate | Public, no account required — Cohen's κ, judge sensitivity and specificity, labels counted per stratum, and a limitations section |
Evaluating a specific tool? Hold it to the six-point measurement bar we publish and meet — or ask us and you will get a straight answer, including where we lose.
The reason to care about the statistics is not elegance. It is that someone senior will eventually ask whether the number is real, and you need an answer better than "the dashboard says so".
This is the part we would keep if we had to drop everything else. In a category this new, the easiest thing to sell is a confident number, and the most valuable thing to own is a number you can defend.
Stated plainly, because the category is full of quiet over-promises:
If any of these is a requirement, we are not the right tool, and you should be suspicious of whoever says yes.
Every shipped change measured against its own baseline. The answer is a number with a confidence interval — not a hunch, and not a screenshot.
The free tier runs a real suite across every engine. No card, and the methodology is public before you start.