Am I Visible?

Global · $997 audit

3.74/ 5

M1 · Own AI-visibility 2 · 9%

Absent from category recall on both engines. Brand recall weak, engines diverge: ChatGPT — 'site is live and describes an AI-visibility audit service, but results are almost entirely the company's own material; no substantial independent coverage' (self-sourced-thin); Claude — 'found nothing for that specific entity; name collides with unrelated tools (amionai.com, amivisible.org); effectively zero independent web presence' (absent/unverifiable). · provisional

M2 · Method transparency 5 · 16%

Transparent method and deliverable — every prompt "runs against the live web"; measures "Share of AI Voice" (brand mentions across five engines), "Citation sources" (top 10 sources the engines pull from) and an "SEO authority benchmark (lite)" (Domain Rating, organic traffic, referring domains); ships "PDF + CSV" with "all 1,125 logged AI responses". source ↗

M3 · Evidence verifiability 2 · 23%

No named clients, case studies, testimonials or review counts; the "1,125 responses logged" figure is audit volume, not client proof. source ↗

M4 · Pricing openness 5 · 12%

Published fixed price — "$997 flat fee · one-off", "Pay securely via Stripe". source ↗

M5 · AI reachability 5 · 10%

robots.txt does not block the key AI crawlers and the homepage is server-rendered (1634 words to a non-JS reader); it also publishes an llms.txt. source ↗

E1 · Segment fit 4 · 12%

editorial — A self-serve, proportionate $997 one-off built "for founders and growth leads who need to know their starting point" — SMB/startup-oriented, with "SEO managers" widening it slightly up-market. source ↗

E2 · Promise cleanliness 4 · 18%

editorial — Clean, diagnostic-focused claims with "no hard guarantees on rankings", no "dominate" and no manipulation language. The only refund offered is satisfaction-based on insight value — "If you genuinely feel your audit didn't deliver $997 of insight, we'll refund in full" — not an outcome/ranking guarantee, so it reads as a clean promise rather than a snake-oil performance pledge; red-flag cap not tripped. source ↗

◧ M1 cross-engine — ChatGPT: self-sourced-thin — live site/audit service, but results almost entirely own material; no independent coverage · Claude: absent/unverifiable — nothing found for the entity; name collides with unrelated tools · recorded, not averaged

A clean self-serve audit with a transparent multi-engine method (Share of AI Voice, citation sources, full response CSV), an open $997 price and honest, no-ranking-guarantee framing. The one weak axis is the heaviest — no published client proof (M3). Judgment call: the money-back here is a satisfaction-of-insight refund, not a performance guarantee, so E2 stays high rather than capped low. Own-visibility (M1) provisional.

Focus: focused specialist · no penalty

SMB-primary: pass

Self-serve offer: pass

GEO substance: pass

Live business: pass

What this ruler does NOT measure Track-record depth and the volume of named cases favour older incumbents we cannot fully see; NDA-bound outcomes are unscored. We weight reproducible, buyer-checkable signal on purpose — and we list ourselves on the same ruler.

Data as of 2026-06-30