See which of your coverage the engines actually cite. Before a campaign it is your baseline. After it, your proof.
Give us the client, up to 5 coverage URLs and, if you have them, your own prompts. We ask Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity - the same engines a free scan reads - and tell you piece by piece whether they cited that page, the publication it is on, or neither, plus which sites they are citing instead. Dated, stored and re-runnable, so the next reading is a comparison rather than another snapshot.
These are the 5 we ask by default
Built from the brand and what you want the client referenced for, not from your headlines. Supply your own 5 instead if you track a prompt set already - either way the wording is frozen onto the reading, so the same questions can be asked again after the campaign and the two compared.
Three things it tells you
All three are readable today, from what is published. None of them needs a tag on the client's site, and none of them claims the campaign caused anything.
Ask about the brand by name and see whether the answer is right, wrong, or about somebody else. Confusion with a similarly named company is more common than you would think, and it is invisible until you look.
Every AI answer is assembled from pages. Each URL you give us gets a row: cited as a page, cited as a publication but a different page on it, or not cited at all. Two of four being a competitor comparison page is a finding.
The reading is dated and stored with its questions, so the same ones can be asked again after the campaign. Without that first reading there is nothing to compare, which is why this one is free - one per client domain.
Built for PR teams who are tired of reporting reach. See how agencies use it