AEOeye vs Evertune: One-Off AI Audit or Always-On GEO Platform?

Choose by the question you need answered. AEOeye answers a one-off question: does AI name my brand, and who does it name instead? Evertune is a continuous measurement and activation platform for teams that will act on its data every week.

• Pick AEOeye if you have never checked what ChatGPT says about you. Start with the free audit, then add the $29 report when you want Claude, Gemini, Google AI and Perplexity too.
• Pick Evertune if AI visibility is already a funded channel. You need weekly or daily tracking across many models, content production and advertising in one place, and you can run a sales-led onboarding at $800 a month or more.
• Pick neither if you want continuous tracking at a lower price. Self-serve trackers cost far less; see Evertune alternatives.

Our view: run a one-time audit before you buy any monitoring platform. A tracker measures change, and you cannot judge a trend until you know whether you have a problem at all.

AEOeye is an audit: you ask, it answers, you act. Evertune is a platform that measures, then helps you act and advertise. They overlap on one question (is my brand named?) and differ on everything after it.

AEOeye. The free audit gives an AI visibility score and grade, three unbranded buyer questions asked to ChatGPT live with the real answers shown in full, the competitors AI recommends instead, and starter fixes. The $29 one-time report adds Claude, Gemini, Google AI and Perplexity, ten questions instead of three, a five-layer SEO foundation audit and a fix roadmap emailed as a PDF. Each engine is tested at the default tier a free user would get. There is no subscription.

Evertune. Its homepage describes four steps: Explore (what buyers ask AI), Measure (where you stand against competitors across 11 models), Act (content and website fixes) and Advertise (ChatGPT ads and retargeting). Its company page says it was founded in 2024 by early Trade Desk team members and lists Halo Collar, Canada Goose, HexClad, Roku and WPP as clients.

The biggest differences are price basis, how often you measure, and what happens after measurement. AEOeye charges per report; Evertune charges per month and sells through a demo. The table after these sections lists every row, and four deserve a note.

• Price basis. AEOeye costs $0 for the free audit and $29 one-time. Evertune's pricing page lists Pro at $800 a month and Enterprise as custom, with no billing terms. At list price, a year of Pro is $9,600 (our arithmetic).
• Prompt limits. Pro lists 100,000 prompts tracked across 11 AI models. The page does not say whether that counts prompts or sampled responses, so ask in the demo, because the method asks each prompt up to 100 times.
• Engines. Evertune's FAQ lists ChatGPT, ChatGPT Search, Gemini, Gemini Search, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Meta AI, Claude, Copilot, Perplexity and DeepSeek. AEOeye covers five engines in the $29 report and ChatGPT alone in the free audit.
• Access. Both Evertune plans end in "Request a demo", and we found no free tier or trial on that page. AEOeye starts at the homepage.

Evertune is stronger on measurement depth, prompt sourcing and what you can do after measuring. That is a different class of product, not a bigger version of ours.

Repeated sampling. Evertune asks each prompt up to 100 times per model. That matters: OpenAI's documentation says its API outputs are non-deterministic by default, and SparkToro's study of 2,961 runs found under a 1-in-100 chance of getting the same brand list twice and advised asking at least 60 to 100 times. One answer is a draw, not a rate.

We checked Evertune's margins against the standard formula: 100 responses at a 50% mention rate give about ±10 points at 95% confidence, which matches its methodology page. The study is Evertune's own (running shoes, July 2026) and covers sampling noise only, not whether the prompts are well chosen.

Prompts from real users. Evertune builds prompt sets from EverPanel, which it describes as over 150 million real conversations. It also reports what a model knows from training (direct API access) separately from what the consumer app says after a live search, and reads the gap as a diagnosis.

Action. Its platform pages cover Site Audit, Content Studio drafts and affiliate placements, and its FAQ says Site Audit crawls up to 1,000 pages. The pricing page does not make clear which plan includes which tool. Forrester listed Evertune as a notable vendor in its Q3 2026 AEO landscape, per Evertune's own post.

One caution: its AI Brand Score weights position, with first place at 100% and second at 90%. SparkToro put the chance of the same list in the same order below 1 in 1,000. Averaging 100 samples helps, but we would read the Visibility Score, the share of responses naming you, first.

AEOeye is stronger on cost, speed and readability for a first answer. You get the real engine answers without a demo or a monthly commitment, and you can judge them yourself.

• Cost and commitment. $0, then $29 once, against a demo-led platform at $800 a month or more.
• Evidence you can read. You see the full answers and the competitors AI names instead, not an index you must trust.
• Realistic tiers. Each engine is tested at the default tier a free user would get, so you see what most buyers see.
• No data science needed. The output is a list of fixes, not a dashboard to interpret.

The limits are real. The audit reports the answers returned when we asked; it gives no visibility rate with a margin of error. AEOeye is not a daily tracker, does not write your content and cannot guarantee a recommendation. For ongoing monitoring across hundreds of prompts, dedicated trackers do that job; see the best AI visibility tools.

No. In AEOeye's crawler access study (one fetch per site on 3 October 2026), Evertune's robots.txt blocks no AI crawler: it disallows only /legal/ and /404. The site serves an llms.txt file, and its homepage has server-rendered JSON-LD of type Organization, WebSite, SearchAction and EntryPoint.

That is a neutral fact, not a verdict on the product. None of the 43 AI-visibility vendors in the study blocked an AI bot, so it is the norm. The study hub has the method and per-site data.