UserSignals — AI-visibility audit & agency this is us

Global · $30 / $200 / from $1,500/mo · editor-reviewed

3.95/ 5

M1 · Own AI-visibility 1 · 9%

Own AI-visibility is low today — a young, recently Google-delisted domain. Absent from the 2026-06-29 category-recall sweep (which surfaced only established names on both engines); brand recall thin. A number plus a hypothesis (anchoring in progress), not weak practice — and the gap the register is itself built to close, in the open.

M2 · Method transparency 5 · 16%

Publishes how it works AND what it measures, reproducibly: usersignals.ai runs its audits on the AI100 engine and points to AI100's openly published methodology — the four engines tested (GPT-5.5, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek; memory + web modes), the scenario corpus, the exact scoring weights (mention 28 / Top-3 14 / Top-1 10 / avg-position 15 / scenario-coverage 18 / in-answer 10 / text-share 5) and the 0–100 log formula — free, not paywalled. More method disclosure than peers scored 5. (Earlier 4 corrected: it wrongly conflated the public AI100 method with the paid $999 report.) source ↗

M3 · Evidence verifiability 2 · 23%

Honest downgrade on our own row: the public use-cases page presents illustrative problem patterns, NOT named clients or bounded, checkable case results. No named, linkable proof a buyer/auditor can verify today. source ↗

M4 · Pricing openness 5 · 12%

Fully published self-serve pricing: Express AI Visibility Audit $30 and Specialist Consultation $200 are fixed, immediately purchasable; Ongoing Operations from $1,500/mo (scoped per engagement). source ↗

M5 · AI reachability 5 · 10%

robots.txt does not block the key AI crawlers and the homepage is server-rendered (1466 words to a non-JS reader); it also publishes an llms.txt. source ↗

E1 · Segment fit 5 · 12%

editorial — Built for the private / small-business buyer — a $30 self-serve audit as the default starting point, proportionate scope, no enterprise minimum. source ↗

E2 · Promise cleanliness 5 · 18%

editorial — Trust page explicitly: 'we do not promise guaranteed search positions or guaranteed recommendations from AI systems'; forbids fake reviews, fake testimonials and fake personas. Claims framed in factual wording without promises about positions. source ↗

◧ M1 cross-engine — ChatGPT: not separately probed (held honest-low) · Claude: not separately probed (held honest-low) · recorded, not averaged

Listed on the identical ruler and shown exactly where it stands — including the unflattering parts. Published, reproducible method — AI100's full methodology, weights and all, is openly documented (M2=5); strong and checkable on open pricing (M4) and clean, no-guarantee promises (E2); and — honestly — there is no named, verifiable public case evidence yet (M3=2) and own AI-visibility is low on a young, delisted domain (M1=1). We do not float ourselves: the register lists competitors above us where they earn it.

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