10 Free Tools to Check ChatGPT Visibility in 2026 (Agency Edition)
GenPicked Research Team
17 min read
Your client is invisible to ChatGPT. You just don't know it yet.
If you haven't run a five-engine AEO audit on your top three clients this week, then the working assumption is: they don't show up in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, or Google AI Overviews when a prospect asks the questions that would lead to a sale. Per Loamly's February 2026 analysis, 77% of brands are completely absent from AI platform responses. Odds say your clients are in that 77%.
The good news: there's no barrier to checking. No deal. Just the right tool, 10 minutes, and the confidence to either confirm your clients are ranked or prove they need to be. This post is a guided tour of the 10 free tools that actually work—and a decision tree for when you're ready to stop running them manually and start getting results automatically.
Why agencies start here: the no-budget audit
Every agency owner has a moment when a client asks: "Are we showing up in ChatGPT?" The honest answer is: "I don't know." The second honest answer is: "I'm not paying to find out until I know if it matters."
The 10 free tools below are the no-budget audit checklist. Run these on your top 3-5 clients. Spend zero dollars. Find out if AEO is a real problem for your book. Then—if you find visibility gaps—you can either fix them manually, pitch a retainer, or move to a paid platform. But at least you'll have data.
How we tested: what counts as "free" and what we measured
"Free tool" has a lot of definitions. To keep this list honest, we counted three types:
1
No-credit-card free tier.
At least one query or check runs without entering payment info. Examples: GenPicked AEO Score, AmICited, AthenaHQ's limited free tier.
2
Free trial with honest limits.
A tool like Otterly offers 7 days free to evaluate before paying. required upfront; that counts.
3
Manual techniques (completely free).
Opening ChatGPT in incognito, asking Perplexity a question, running Google AI Overviews—all are free. They're methods, not tools, but they belong on this list.
We excluded tools requiring a credit card to trial, even if they waive the charge later. We also excluded Profound's enterprise platform (no self-serve tier) but noted its sporadic free audits if available.
Every URL below was verified live on 2026-04-25. Dead tools were dropped.
The 10 free tools (ranked by speed and breadth)
Quick wins
Start here: 5-minute baseline
These three will tell you in under 5 minutes whether your client is being cited at all. Run these first, before any paid evaluation.
01
GenPicked Free AEO Score
URL: https://genpicked.com/pricing
What it does: Instant 0-100 AEO Citation Score across all five engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Google AI Overviews) with per-engine breakdown showing citation rates and position. One query returns visibility gaps by engine plus a natural-language summary. Runs parallel API checks and weights results using the ACS methodology.
Pros: Five-engine coverage in 60 seconds. Honest scoring that separates by engine (no averaging). Shows exactly which engines cite you and which don't. Free tier requires zero credit card.
Cons: Limited to 1 query per day on free tier. No historical tracking (returns snapshot only). Requires entering your domain and query—not anonymous.
Best for: First 60-second audit on a new client. Establishing baseline score. Understanding per-engine variation (why Claude is 97.3% cite rate but ChatGPT is 73.6%).
Cost: Free ( ). Paid tiers track daily and provide historical trends.
02
AmICited (Am I Cited)
URL: https://amicited.com
What it does: Single-engine brand-mention tracker focused on ChatGPT. Enter your domain and see if ChatGPT mentions it across a sample of searches. Returns mention frequency and a yes/no answer to "Am I cited?" Dashboard shows trending citations over time on paid plans.
Pros: Hyper-focused on ChatGPT (the highest-traffic engine). No noise from other LLMs. Clean, simple interface. Free tier available immediately.
Cons: ChatGPT-only; misses Perplexity (46.7% of Perplexity citations come from Reddit), Gemini, Claude, and Google AI Overviews. Limited query count on free tier. Does not show position or depth of citation.
Best for: Confirming ChatGPT visibility specifically. Quick sanity-check for a single client. Agencies that are ChatGPT-centric in their AEO strategy.
What it does: Tracks brand mentions across six AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, Copilot, Google AI Mode) with unified dashboard showing citation trends and competitor tracking. Seven-day trial gives full access— required upfront. After trial, $29/mo entry tier available.
Pros: Six-engine coverage (broadest free trial). Clean, modern dashboard. Named Gartner Cool Vendor 2025. $29/mo baseline is the cheapest paid option if you need to continue. to start trial.
Cons: Trial expires after 7 days; you must remember to cancel or will be charged. Limited to trial period (no perpetual free tier). Reporting features limited in entry tier.
Best for: Agencies deciding whether to invest in AEO tooling at all. Testing six-engine tracking before committing budget. Single-client deep-dive during the trial window.
Cost: 7-day free trial ( ). $29/mo after if you continue.
Manual techniques (completely free, no tool required)
These four are not SaaS tools—they're methods. But they're in this list because they are completely free and they work. Each takes 5-10 minutes per query.
04
ChatGPT Incognito Check
URL: https://chatgpt.com (incognito window)
What it does: Open ChatGPT in an incognito browser window (to avoid personalization). Ask 10-20 natural prospect questions. Screenshot the answers and search the page for your brand name. Repeat each query 3 times and calculate a mention consistency rate. This is the Ahrefs-published method and the baseline for all AEO audits.
Pros: Completely free. No tools, no signups. Returns real ChatGPT responses. You can see the exact wording and context of mentions. Repeating 3 times gives you consistency data that single-query tools don't.
Cons: Manual and slow. Testing 10 queries 3 times each = 30 checks minimum. ChatGPT varies run-to-run (that's the point, but it's tedious). No historical tracking or benchmarking.
Best for: Establishing ground truth. Proving to a client that their visibility problem is real. Validating paid-tool results when you're skeptical. Spot-checks on a single client or category.
Cost: Free (ChatGPT account required, but no paid plan needed).
05
Perplexity Manual Test
URL: https://www.perplexity.ai
What it does: Use Perplexity's free web interface to ask your prospect questions. Perplexity always shows sources with links—screenshot and check whether your domain is cited. Per Discovered Labs' research, 46.7% of Perplexity's top 10 citations come from Reddit, so Perplexity's citation patterns are radically different from ChatGPT's. Testing Perplexity separately is non-negotiable.
Pros: Free. Shows sources explicitly (easier to verify citations). Perplexity is very citation-friendly, so visibility gaps are more obvious here than in ChatGPT. Important for Reddit-heavy content strategies.
Cons: Manual, not automated. No tracking dashboard. Perplexity's source-first approach is very different from ChatGPT; results don't translate one-to-one. Limited to Perplexity only (doesn't cover the other 4 engines).
Best for: Isolating Perplexity visibility. Debugging Reddit strategy effectiveness. Understanding how citations differ across engines (critical insight for multi-engine AEO).
Cost: Free (Perplexity free tier).
06
Gemini Manual Check
URL: https://gemini.google.com
What it does: Use Google's Gemini conversational interface to ask your prospect queries. Gemini often cites different sources than ChatGPT does for the same question. Screenshot and check citations. Gemini represents Google's conversational-AI strategy separate from Google AI Overviews (which appear in Google Search). Running both gives you Google's full picture.
Pros: Free. Different citation patterns from ChatGPT and Perplexity—captures a distinct segment of AI search. Google account required, but no payment. Good for understanding how different LLMs prioritize sources.
Cons: Manual. Gemini's citation formatting varies (sometimes in footnotes, sometimes in-text). No historical tracking. Limited to Gemini only.
Best for: Checking Google LLM visibility separate from Search. Understanding which sources Gemini prioritizes vs. ChatGPT. Full five-engine baseline when combined with ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude manual checks, and Google AI Overviews.
Cost: Free (Google account).
07
Claude Manual Check
URL: https://claude.ai
What it does: Use Claude free tier to ask prospect questions. Per Profound's public research, Claude mentions brands in 97.3% of its answers — the highest rate of any LLM. This makes Claude a high-probability test for brand visibility. Screenshot answers and check citations.
Pros: Free tier available. Highest brand-mention rate of any LLM (97.3% per Profound), so visibility gaps here mean something is seriously wrong. Claude's output is verbose and cites sources frequently. Different weighting than ChatGPT or Perplexity.
Cons: Manual. Free tier has usage limits (but sufficient for spot-checks). Claude's traffic footprint is smaller than ChatGPT's (roughly 15% of AEO engines' combined share). Need to track manually.
Best for: Establishing whether a brand is citeable at all. Claude's high mention rate makes it a good baseline for quality signals. Understanding which brand characteristics drive citation (since Claude cites so broadly).
Cost: Free (Claude free tier).
Advanced hybrid tools (free tier + paid options)
These three combine free tiers with optional paid upgrades. They're good when you need more automation than pure manual checks, but want to test before paying.
08
AthenaHQ Free Tier
URL: https://athenahq.ai
What it does: Multi-engine brand discovery and AI search visibility tracking. Free tier includes 1-2 limited checks per month; paid tiers ($79/mo+) unlock daily tracking and competitive analysis. Free tier is enough for a one-time baseline on a single client.
Pros: Multi-engine from the start (not ChatGPT-only). Clean UI. Y Combinator-backed with runway. Cheap paid tiers if you like the output ($79/mo base).
Cons: Free tier is severely limited (1-2 checks/month). Once you exceed, you're pushed to paid. Feature matrix on free tier not transparent. Smaller customer base than Otterly or Profound.
Best for: Single-client baseline check if you want automation but aren't ready to commit budget. Testing multi-engine approach before choosing a paid platform.
Cost: Free limited tier (1-2 checks/mo); paid from $79/mo.
09
Ahrefs Brand Radar
URL: https://ahrefs.com/brand-radar
What it does: Ahrefs' brand mention monitoring that includes AI engine citations as of late 2025. Free tier limited to 1 brand + limited query volume; paid tiers unlock bulk monitoring. If you're already using Ahrefs for SEO, this integrates directly into your existing workflow.
Pros: Integrates with existing Ahrefs SEO data. Familiar interface for Ahrefs customers. Includes both traditional backlink monitoring and AI citation tracking. Large customer base and strong support.
Cons: Free tier is extremely limited (1 brand, low query count). Requires Ahrefs account; not a standalone tool. AI feature newer than core Ahrefs product; maturity TBD. Not purpose-built for AEO.
Best for: Ahrefs subscribers adding AEO to their existing SEO retainers. Agencies that want a single-vendor approach (SEO + AEO). One-time audit if you have existing Ahrefs access.
Cost: Free tier (1 brand); paid from ~$99/mo (bundled with Ahrefs).
10
Google AI Overviews Manual Search
URL: https://www.google.com
What it does: Search your prospect queries in Google Search to see if an AI Overview appears. If it does, screenshot it and check whether your domain is cited. Per Ahrefs' December 2025 analysis, Google AI Overviews now trigger on 48% of tracked queries. This is different from Gemini—it's Google's inline LLM answer in Search results.
Pros: Completely free. Captures Google's Search AI (distinct from Gemini). AI Overviews are the future of Google Search; visibility here is critical. Simple to replicate (everyone searches Google).
Cons: AI Overviews don't appear on every query (48% overall, but varies by category). Manual and slow to test systematically. No data on your own monitoring dashboard. Hard to track consistency across runs.
Best for: Baseline audit for any client. Showing a client visually that an AI answer exists and whether they're in it. Spot-check verification when you want to confirm a paid tool's results.
Cost: Free (Google Search).
At-a-glance comparison table
Not all free tools are equal. Here's the cheat sheet:
Tool
Engines Tracked
Free Tier
Best For
Time to First Result
GenPicked AEO Score
5 (all)
1 query/day
Fast baseline
60 seconds
AmICited
ChatGPT only
Yes
ChatGPT confidence
2 minutes
Otterly Trial
6 (base)
7 days
Paid decision
5 min setup
ChatGPT Incognito
ChatGPT only
Free
Ground truth
5–10 min/query
Perplexity Check
Perplexity only
Free
Reddit strategy
5–10 min/query
Gemini Check
Gemini only
Free
Google LLM
5–10 min/query
Claude Check
Claude only
Free
Baseline citability
5–10 min/query
AthenaHQ
Multi-engine
1–2/month
Limited testing
10 min setup
Ahrefs Radar
Multi-engine
1 brand
Ahrefs customers
Immediate
Google AI Overviews
Google only
Free
Visual validation
2–3 min/query
The move
Run the three quick tools first (GenPicked AEO Score, AmICited, Otterly trial). If you find visibility gaps, commit 1-2 hours to manual spot-checks (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude incognito). If you have 5+ clients, the time cost pushes you toward automation. When manual stops scaling is when you move to a paid platform.
When manual stops scaling (the bridge to paid tools)
The 10 tools above will cost you zero dollars. They'll cost you time. Specifically:
1 client, 10 queries, 1-time audit
30–45 minutes total
3 clients, 10 queries each, monthly
3–4 hours per month
10 clients, 10 queries each, weekly
12–15 hours per week (not feasible)
30 clients, 15 queries each, daily
Impossible to do manually
The economics flip at three clients. Once you have three or more clients with AEO visibility gaps, the time cost of running these manually every week outweighs the cost of a paid tool. At that point, evaluate:
•
Otterly: $29/mo entry, 6 engines. Best if you have 1-3 clients and want the cheapest option.
•
GenPicked: $97/mo platform + $75/brand/mo. Best for agencies managing 5-30 brands with white-label reporting and autoblogging content generation.
•
Ahrefs Radar: Bundled with Ahrefs SEO tool. Best if you're already paying for Ahrefs and want one unified dashboard.
•
Profound: Enterprise platform, sales-only. Best for Fortune 500 brands or agencies with unlimited budgets.
Track these scores daily
Track all 5 engines daily, automatically
When manual checks aren't scaling — Growth plan free for 14 days. Five AI engines. Full agency dashboard.
Pick any tool above and run your first baseline check today. No deal. Just data. If you find visibility gaps, the decision tree below will guide you to the next step—either fix it manually or pitch an AEO retainer to the client.
Q: Why do I need to test five engines? Can't I just check ChatGPT?
A: ChatGPT dominates traffic (87.4% of AI search traffic per Conductor 2026), but your client might be completely invisible there and ranked #1 on Claude. Per Profound's public data, Claude mentions brands in 97.3% of answers vs. ChatGPT at 73.6%. Averaging them is useless. Always split by engine. A five-engine baseline that shows your client is visible only on Gemini and Claude still tells you something: you need to earn Perplexity and ChatGPT presence specifically.
Q: How many queries should I test?
A: For a baseline audit, 10-20 natural prospect questions. Not keyword phrases—real questions a buyer would ask. "What's the best CRM for nonprofits?" Yes. "best nonprofit crm" No. Run each query 3 times (LLMs vary run-to-run) and calculate mention consistency: (tests with mention ÷ total tests) × 100. That number is more useful than a single snapshot.
Q: Is ChatGPT's visibility the same as Google's?
A: No. Per Ahrefs' February 2026 analysis, only 38% of pages cited in Google AI Overviews rank in Google's top 10. And 28.3% of ChatGPT's most-cited pages have zero Google organic visibility. They're different ranking systems. Your client might rank #1 in Google and be invisible in ChatGPT, or vice versa. Test both separately.
Q: Which free tool is the most accurate?
A: Manual checks (ChatGPT incognito, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude). You're seeing the raw answer from the LLM. Paid tools add algorithms on top to infer missing data or classify results, which introduces a layer of interpretation. For a one-time audit, the manual method is the slowest but the most honest.
Q: Can I use these tools to compete on the same queries across multiple clients?
A: Yes. Run the same 10 prospect queries against all five engines for both your client and their top 3 competitors. GenPicked's AEO Score does this in one check. Manual tools require you to do it for each brand one at a time. This is where the time cost explodes and automation becomes worth paying for.
Q: If the tools say my client is invisible, what should I fix first?
A: Brand mentions in trusted sources (3:1 correlation with visibility per RivalHound). Not schema. Not llms.txt. Earn mentions in publications, podcasts, Reddit threads, and analyst reports your buyers read. That's the highest-ROI lever. Once you've started the mentions play, then optimize content structure (FAQ schema, 100-150 word chunks) as a 2x multiplier.
Q: Why does Perplexity show different results than ChatGPT?
A: Perplexity is optimized for source diversity and freshness. Per Discovered Labs' analysis, 46.7% of Perplexity's top citations come from Reddit—a source Perplexity prioritizes. ChatGPT relies more on broad web training. Different LLMs have different source priorities. Your Reddit presence matters for Perplexity; earned mentions in industry publications matter for ChatGPT. Ignore this difference and you'll miss half your optimization surface.
Q: What's the difference between Gemini (the tool) and Google AI Overviews?
A: Gemini is Google's standalone LLM chat interface. Google AI Overviews are inline LLM-generated answers that appear in Google Search results. They're the same underlying tech but different user contexts. Google AI Overviews are higher-traffic (48% of queries per Ahrefs). Test both separately. A brand can rank in AI Overviews and not show up in Gemini.ai, or vice versa.
Q: Which of these tools will I still be using in 2027?
A: The manual techniques (ChatGPT incognito, Perplexity checks) are permanent. They'll work as long as the LLMs exist and you have a browser. The paid tools that survive will be the ones that solve a specific agency pain point: speed (daily automation), accuracy (multi-engine depth), or delivery (white-label reports). Otterly and GenPicked are profitable and building defensible positions. Profound is enterprise-backed. Ahrefs' radar feature lives inside their larger SEO product. The fly-by-night AEO tools will disappear.
The next step: from audit to action
Running one of the 10 tools above takes 30 minutes to an hour. Here's what to do after you have the data:
1
If your client is visible on 3+ engines: You have a good foundation. Test again in 30 days to measure consistency. The work pays off (AI-sourced traffic converts 35% better per Seer Interactive).
2
If your client is visible on 1-2 engines only: Identify the missing engines and research why (domain authority gap? Reddit presence lacking?). This is your retainer pitch: "We found you in Claude but not ChatGPT. Here's why and what it costs to fix."
3
If your client is invisible across all five engines: This is urgent. They're in the 77% invisibility bucket. Immediate fixes: (a) research and pitch 5 high-authority publications in their category; (b) identify Reddit communities where their buyers hang out; (c) fix one pillar page with FAQ schema + 100-150 word chunks. Run the audit again in 2 weeks.
The GenPicked Research Team publishes original AEO/GEO benchmarks — including the 2026 Fitness Wearables Bradley-Terry study — to give agencies measurement methodology they can defend to clients.
Credentials:
Original AEO/GEO research and benchmarks, ACS (AEO Citation Score) framework custodians, Bradley-Terry methodology for cross-engine ranking
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do I need to test five engines? Can't I just check ChatGPT?
ChatGPT dominates traffic (87.4% of AI search traffic per Conductor 2026), but your client might be completely invisible there and ranked #1 on Claude. Per Profound's public data, Claude mentions brands in 97.3% of answers vs. ChatGPT at 73.6%. Averaging them is useless. Always split by engine.
How many queries should I test?
For a baseline audit, 10-20 natural prospect questions. Not keyword phrases—real questions a buyer would ask. Run each query 3 times (LLMs vary run-to-run) and calculate mention consistency: (tests with mention ÷ total tests) × 100.
Is ChatGPT's visibility the same as Google's?
No. Per Ahrefs' February 2026 analysis, only 38% of pages cited in Google AI Overviews rank in Google's top 10. And 28.3% of ChatGPT's most-cited pages have zero Google organic visibility. They're different ranking systems.
Which free tool is the most accurate?
Manual checks (ChatGPT incognito, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude). You're seeing the raw answer from the LLM. Paid tools add algorithms on top to infer missing data or classify results, which introduces a layer of interpretation.
Can I use these tools to compete on the same queries across multiple clients?
Yes. Run the same 10 prospect queries against all five engines for both your client and their top 3 competitors. GenPicked's AEO Score does this in one check. This is where the time cost explodes and automation becomes worth paying for.
If the tools say my client is invisible, what should I fix first?
Brand mentions in trusted sources (3:1 correlation with visibility per RivalHound). Not schema. Not llms.txt. Earn mentions in publications, podcasts, Reddit threads, and analyst reports your buyers read. That's the highest-ROI lever.
Why does Perplexity show different results than ChatGPT?
Perplexity is optimized for source diversity and freshness. 46.7% of Perplexity's top citations come from Reddit. ChatGPT relies more on broad web training. Different LLMs have different source priorities. Your Reddit presence matters for Perplexity.
What's the difference between Gemini (the tool) and Google AI Overviews?
Gemini is Google's standalone LLM chat interface. Google AI Overviews are inline LLM-generated answers in Google Search results. They're the same tech but different user contexts. Test both separately—visibility can differ.
Which of these tools will I still be using in 2027?
The manual techniques (ChatGPT incognito, Perplexity checks) are permanent. They'll work as long as the LLMs exist. The paid tools that survive will solve a specific pain point: speed, accuracy, or delivery (white-label reports).
How do I know when it's time to move from free tools to a paid platform?
When you have 3+ clients and need to run audits weekly or more frequently. The time cost of manual checks (12-15 hours/week for 10 clients) exceeds the cost of a paid tool. Otterly ($29/mo) or GenPicked ($97/mo + per-brand) become ROI-positive.