GEO / AEO · B2B SaaS, 20–200 people · US & UK
AI visibility consultant for B2B SaaS. Your buyers ask ChatGPT for a shortlist — I get you onto it.
AI search visibility, also called GEO or AEO, is how often AI assistants mention and cite your company when buyers ask about your category.
I am an independent AI search visibility consultant — generative engine optimization (GEO) and answer engine optimization (AEO) — working with B2B SaaS companies of 20 to 200 people in the US and UK.
I measure how often ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews name your competitors instead of you, find the technical and content reasons behind the gap, and close them. Every number arrives as a confidence interval, because a single flattering figure pulled from an assistant is not a measurement.
> best AI note-taking tool for sales teams
> alternatives to [market leader]
> is [your product] good for enterprise?
For sales teams, the tools most often recommended are Competitor A, Competitor B and Competitor C. A is usually named first for CRM sync, B for call summaries, C for price.
Answers here lean almost entirely on third-party roundups and review sites. Whoever sits in those listicles gets named — the vendor's own comparison page is rarely the cited source.
You are named — but described from a two-year-old pricing page and a Reddit thread, because your current docs are behind JavaScript that no AI crawler executes.
Illustrative pattern, not a client result. Real audits report per-engine numbers with intervals and the prompt set attached.
14+ yrs
in product, web and technical SEO — I implement, not just advise
2,961
repeat runs in the study that shows a single check proves nothing
4+
engines per audit, always reported separately, never blended
11%
of cited domains overlap between ChatGPT and Perplexity
Which AI visibility problem is happening to you right now?
Pick one — I answer it, not a generic pitch
What is actually going on
Assistants name three vendors for your category and you are not among them, so the deal is decided before anyone visits your site.
Your team checks manually in ChatGPT, the agency shows a dashboard, a tool shows something else. Nobody can say which is right.
You suspect AI-sourced pipeline exists but cannot prove it, so the budget conversation stalls every quarter.
Someone quoted you for llms.txt, FAQ schema and 'AI-optimised content' as a citation booster.
Why it happens
Engines lean on third-party pages — roundups, comparisons, review sites. Around 85% of brand mentions come from somebody else's page, and yours is not in that set.
Repeat the same prompt and the list changes. Any tool showing a single 'AI position' is selling a point estimate where only an interval exists.
ChatGPT stopped passing a referrer in roughly 72% of sessions, and a third to two thirds of AI traffic lands in GA4 as Direct.
There is no evidence major engines consume llms.txt, and schema is not a citation multiplier. Selling it as one is where most of this market makes its money.
First move I would make
Baseline audit first: 50–200 buyer-intent prompts across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and AI Overviews, then an inventory of the pages that get cited instead of you.
One frozen prompt set, agreed run counts, per-engine reporting with confidence intervals — and a rule written down in advance: overlapping intervals mean no trend.
A tracking layer that survives that: segment design in GA4 and HubSpot, leading indicators instead of fake attribution, and an honest statement of what cannot be attributed.
A short, unglamorous list of what actually moves the number in your case — and a written note of what I refuse to sell you and why.
Start with an AI visibility audit →See the measurement protocol →Fix the measurement gap →Get the honest scope →
How do you measure AI search visibility? Move the sliders.
Across 2,961 repeat runs in an independent study, the chance of getting the same list twice was under 1 in 100, and the same order under 1 in 1,000. So the honest question is not “what is my position in ChatGPT” — it is how wide the error bar is on the number you are being shown.
At this size a month-over-month move larger than the interval is worth acting on. This is roughly where I set an audit: width beats depth for share of voice.
Reported share of voice
16.0 – 26.8%
±5.4
Margin, pp
600
Answers collected
readable
Monthly delta
GEO vs SEO: is this just SEO with a new name?
Partly — and I would rather say it now than have you find out in month three. The technical hygiene overlaps almost entirely. What genuinely differs is measurement, the crawler layer, and the fact that around 85% of brand mentions in AI answers originate on pages you do not own.
| Dimension | Classic SEO | GEO / AEO |
|---|---|---|
| Unit of result | A ranking position for a keyword | A mention, and separately a citation, inside a generated answer |
| Stability | Ranks are broadly reproducible day to day | Same prompt, same day, different list — under 1 in 100 chance of a repeat |
| Where the win happens | Mostly on your own pages | Mostly on cited third-party pages: comparisons, review sites, roundups |
| Crawler layer | Googlebot renders JavaScript | No major AI crawler executes JS. Separate bots, separate permissions, separate silent failures at the WAF |
| Analytics | Referrers mostly survive | A third to two thirds of AI traffic lands in GA4 as Direct |
Where is the proof, if you have no client logos?
Three things instead of a logo wall
I do not have a logo wall, and inventing one is where most of this market starts. What I do have is published data with the raw runs attached, a measurement protocol anyone can copy, and public teardowns where the follow-up reading is printed even when it is flat. Each of the three links below carries its own sample size and measurement dates.
01 · Research
Who gets cited across 20 B2B SaaS categories
Which source types the engines lean on, how rarely they agree with each other, and how little of it is your own domain. Raw CSV included.
Read the study →
02 · Method
How I measure AI search visibility, published in full
Prompt sampling by buying stage, run counts, engine coverage, mention versus citation, and the exact prompt set from a reference audit.
Read the method →
03 · Teardowns
Public AI visibility audits, re-measured after 90 days
Real companies, public data only, with the second reading printed — including the ones where nothing moved and I say why.
See the teardowns →Why can't you just check ChatGPT yourself?
Because the six numbers on the right are what a single manual check quietly ignores. Each one is measured, sourced and dated in the research section — none of them is a marketing figure.
What you actually receive
Illustrations · sample pages on request
Who you are hiring
Who is the AI visibility consultant you are hiring?
Fourteen years in digital as a project manager and product owner: web products, SaaS platforms, SEO programmes and transformation projects, full lifecycle from requirements to launch and continuous improvement. As product owner I took a SaaS platform from concept to a profitable business, which is where weighing business goals against technical constraints stopped being theory.
That matters here because recommendations from me do not stop at a PDF. Schema, crawler access, answer-shaped content, comparison pages, structured data, Core Web Vitals, GA4 and Search Console — I implement, in WordPress or Next.js, or I hand your engineers a spec they can build from.
- Based
- Chișinău, Moldova · remote
- Markets
- US & UK, English
- Focus
- GEO / AI search visibility, technical & on-page SEO
- Stack
- WordPress, Next.js / React, structured data, GA4
- Education
- Information Technology, Slavic University of Moldova
How much does GEO cost?
Hover a row to read what it includes
An AI visibility audit is $1,500 and a full GEO retainer starts at $3,000 a month. I publish the numbers because if a figure ends the conversation it saves us both a call, and because almost nobody in AEO or GEO pricing does. Retainers start at three months: with 40–60% monthly rotation in cited domains, a one-month delta cannot be interpreted at all.
AI Visibility Audit
$1,500
10 working days
150–200 prompts × 3 runs, 4+ engines, competitor benchmark, crawler access check, cited-source inventory, prioritised backlog
Monitoring
$750 / mo
weekly runs
Frozen set of 50–100 prompts, weekly runs, interval reporting, alerts when something actually moves
Full GEO retainer
from $3,000 / mo
3 months min.
Monitoring plus technical clean-up, work on cited third-party sources, and content built to be quoted
Advisory call
$250 / hour
one-off
Review someone else's proposal, sanity-check a plan, answer your team's questions
Full GEO & AI visibility pricing, what moves the number, market context →
What I will not sell you
Most of the money in this market is made on three things that do not survive contact with data. You will find them in almost every GEO proposal you are shown, so it is worth knowing what to ask about before you sign anything — including with me.
Not sold here
llms.txt as a citation booster
Google has twice confirmed publicly that no system of theirs consumes it, and a study across 300,000 domains found no link to citation rates. This site deliberately has no llms.txt, with a page explaining why.
Not sold here
FAQ schema as an AI lever
Measured across 129,000 domains, pages carrying FAQ markup averaged 3.6 citations against 4.2 without it. The questions themselves matter; the markup does not. Schema is entity hygiene, not a multiplier.
Not sold here
Guaranteed inclusion in AI answers
Repeat the same prompt and the list changes, so a guaranteed position in ChatGPT is a promise about a number nobody controls. Anyone selling one is selling certainty they cannot deliver.
Latest, with the data attached
GEO and AI visibility questions people actually ask me
Including the three that usually go unanswered on consultant sites: what it costs, what happens when it does not work, and whether this is repackaged SEO.
AI search visibility — generative engine optimization, or GEO — is how often AI assistants mention and cite your company when buyers ask about your category. Mention and citation are separate outcomes and I report them as two lines, because a mention without a citation sends no traffic.
In practice yes: GEO, AEO and answer engine optimization describe the same work under different labels, and the term you will hear depends on who is selling. I use GEO and AEO interchangeably and describe the work in plain language on the money pages.
The technical hygiene overlaps almost completely, and I say so up front. What differs is the measurement, the crawler layer — no major AI crawler executes JavaScript — and the fact that most citations come from third-party pages you do not own.
A significant part of the work is SEO, and any consultant claiming otherwise is selling you a label. The genuinely new parts are three: measurement with intervals instead of ranks, separate crawler permissions per bot, and deliberate work on the cited third-party sources.
A frozen prompt set of 50–200 buyer-intent questions segmented by buying stage, run three or more times across four or more engines, reported per engine as share of voice with confidence intervals. The full protocol and a reference prompt set are published on the method page.
An AI visibility audit is $1,500. Monitoring is $750 a month. A full GEO retainer starts at $3,000 a month with a three-month minimum. Advisory calls are $250 an hour, and all of it is on the pricing page.
For a new or low-authority domain, plan on four to six months. Median time to first citation for fresh material is about a week, but that assumes you already hold authority somewhere the engines already read.
ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews as standard, always reported separately — only about 11% of cited domains appear in both ChatGPT and Perplexity, so a blended number hides more than it shows.
Then the report says so, with the interval that proves it. The engagement is contracted on process and leading indicators rather than promised outcomes, because reliable revenue attribution for AI answers does not exist yet.
No. Repeat runs of the same prompt return different lists, so a guaranteed position in ChatGPT is a promise about a number nobody controls — including me.
Sometimes yes, and I will say so. If your category shows almost no assistant-driven demand yet, spend the money on demand generation and check again in two quarters; an audit then will cost the same and tell you more.
Send me your domain and three competitors.
I will tell you whether there is an AI visibility gap worth fixing before you pay for anything. If the honest read is “wait two quarters”, you will get that in writing instead of an invoice.