Answer to all your questions

ContextOwl is a one-time AI visibility report that shows whether ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity or Claude recommend your brand or a competitor, with the evidence, sources and a ranked fix list. Your score is free; the full report is a single payment, not a subscription.

No. Your AI Visibility Score is free, takes about 90 seconds and needs no payment. You only pay if you want the full report behind it.

No. It is pay per use: you pay once for a report and nothing renews. There is no trial to cancel and no seat pricing.

The base report is ₹1,799. It covers ChatGPT, one competitor and 10 prompts, and comes with the in-browser report, a PDF and an XLSX tracker.

An extra competitor is ₹249. An extra engine (Gemini, Perplexity or Claude) is ₹449. A pack of 10 more prompts is ₹749 for each engine you selected, because those prompts run on every engine. The widget shows your total before you pay.

All prices are in Indian Rupees (₹). What you see in the widget is exactly what Razorpay charges — no conversion, no surprises at checkout.

ChatGPT is included in every report. You can add Gemini, Perplexity or Claude for ₹449 each. We check them live when you run the report.

They monitor your AI visibility every month on a subscription. ContextOwl is one report, paid once. We also say where they are stronger. See the honest comparison →

Our refund policy explains exactly when we refund. Read the refund policy →

Live. Every report queries the engines the moment you run it, so you see what buyers see today, not last month’s snapshot.

Yes, whenever you like. Run a new report and compare it with an earlier one. It is your call, not a schedule.

No. YOURS, its four competitors, the prompts, the answers and the sources are all made up to show the format. Nothing here describes a real business.

Yes. This page renders the same report components a customer sees, from a fictional dataset, so what you see is the real structure and charts.

This sample uses ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Claude. A base report includes ChatGPT, and you can add the others for a small fee per engine.

The sample has 10 prompts and 4 competitors. A base report includes 10 prompts and 1 competitor, and you can add more competitors and prompt packs.

Every paid report comes with a PDF and an XLSX tracker. This page shows the in-browser version of the report.

Yes. The structure, the four metrics and the fix-list format are identical to your real report — only the brand, data and scores here are fictional.

Same chapters, same layout. The difference is that your version runs live: real answers, your actual competitors and your own prompts.

Yes. No signup, no payment, no credit card. Each one checks a specific, real thing in a few minutes.

No. Run any tool anonymously. If you’re signed in, your runs are also saved to your dashboard history so you can find them again later.

The Citation Snapshot if you want to see a live AI answer and check whether you’re named in it. The AI Bot Access Checker if you want a quick technical check instead.

Each free tool checks one thing, once. The full AI Visibility Report runs many prompts across up to four engines, benchmarks you against named competitors and ends with a ranked fix list.

Yes, a fair daily limit per visitor, so the tools stay available for everyone and aren’t easy to abuse.

No. Every tool only reads your site’s public pages or asks an AI engine a question — nothing is installed, changed or written on your site.

Yes. Run any public website through any tool, for as many clients as you like within the daily limit, with no signup required.

A mention is your brand named in the answer text. A citation is a source link the engine shows to back up its claims. You can be mentioned without being cited (the model just knows you) and cited without being named (your page was used as a source but the answer never says your brand). The snapshot reports both: whether your name appears in the answer, and which sources were listed.

We send your question to the engine you pick with its web-search tool switched on, so it retrieves live pages instead of answering only from training data. Then we read the answer to see whether and where your brand appears, and collect the sources it cited. It’s the same mechanic the full ContextOwl report uses, run once instead of across dozens of prompts.

Language model answers are probabilistic, and the pages a search step retrieves can change from one run to the next. The same question can return different brands, in a different order, with different sources. That’s why a single snapshot is a sample rather than a score. The full report runs many prompts across engines so you get a rate, not an anecdote.

Position is the order your brand appears among the brands named in the answer: position 1 means it was named first. Earlier mentions tend to get more attention, but AI answers don’t have a formal ranking the way a search results page does, so treat position as a rough prominence signal rather than a rank.

Ask what a buyer who has never heard of you would ask: a category question (“best invoicing tool for freelancers”), a comparison (“X vs Y”), or a problem question (“how do I stop chasing late payments”). Leave your own brand name out of the question. If you put it in, the engine will mention you and the test tells you nothing.

No. This tool runs one question on one engine, free, as a quick look. The full AI Visibility Report runs many prompts across up to four engines, scores you against named competitors and ends with a ranked fix list.

A backlink is a link another site chose to give you, counted by search engines regardless of whether anyone reads it. An AI citation is a source the engine actually used and showed while answering a specific question — tied to that question, not to your site’s link profile in general.

We send the engine you pick two fixed prompts: “Compare your brand vs competitor” and “What are the best alternatives to competitor?”. For each answer we check whether each brand is mentioned and in what order. The prompts are fixed on purpose, so the test is quick, consistent and the same for everyone.

A win is a question where one brand is named and the other isn’t. If both are named, or neither is, nobody gets the point. With only two prompts it’s a small sample, so read the score as a direction rather than a verdict. The full report runs many more prompts to make it statistically meaningful.

It’s the moment a shopper is already leaving your competitor. If an AI engine recommends alternatives to your rival and you’re not on the list, you’re missing the highest-intent moment in the buying journey. Being named there is the AI-search equivalent of showing up on “best alternatives to X” pages.

Engines don’t evaluate product quality. They summarise what they learned in training and what their search step retrieves. A competitor with more third-party coverage (reviews, comparison articles, listicles, forum threads, directory listings) gets named more often. The way to change that is to get into the sources engines already cite.

Not necessarily. Answers vary between runs, and different engines favour different sources, so try more than one engine and run it a couple of times before drawing conclusions. If you want a stable picture, the full report repeats prompts and compares engines side by side.

No. This runs two fixed prompts on one engine, free. The full report runs 10 or more prompts you write or edit yourself, across up to four engines, with every answer, source and a ranked fix list.

ChatGPT is the most-asked engine for most categories, so it’s a reasonable default. If your buyers lean on a different engine, pick that one — the point is testing where your actual customers are asking, not which engine is “biggest.”

robots.txt is a plain-text file at the root of your domain (yourdomain.com/robots.txt) that tells crawlers which parts of your site they may fetch. The major AI companies publish crawler names and say those crawlers follow it. If your file disallows a bot, that bot won’t fetch your pages, so it can’t use them as a live source. It’s a request rather than enforcement, though. A crawler that ignores it can’t be stopped by robots.txt alone.

GPTBot (OpenAI), ClaudeBot (Anthropic), PerplexityBot, Google-Extended (Google’s opt-out token for Gemini) and Bingbot (which feeds Microsoft Copilot). Google-Extended doesn’t control Google Search or AI Overviews. Those follow Googlebot.

Some providers run separate bots for separate jobs. OpenAI, for example, documents GPTBot (collecting content that may be used for training), OAI-SearchBot (building a search index) and ChatGPT-User (fetching a page because a user asked, where OpenAI says robots.txt rules may not apply). Blocking one doesn’t automatically block the others. This tool checks the main documented token per engine, so treat the result as a first pass and read each provider’s crawler docs for finer control.

No. Access is a precondition, not a ranking factor. Engines still choose sources based on relevance, authority and how easy your content is to extract. Also, robots.txt is only one gate: a firewall, CDN or bot-protection rule can block crawlers even when robots.txt says yes. This tool reads robots.txt only.

It fetches /robots.txt, finds the group for the bot’s user-agent (falling back to the “User-agent: *” group) and looks for a blanket “Disallow: /”. It’s deliberately simple: path-specific rules such as “Disallow: /blog/” aren’t scored, and if there’s no robots.txt at all, every crawler is treated as allowed, which is how crawlers behave too.

No. A ContextOwl report asks each AI engine your question directly, through its own API or web-search tool — it doesn’t depend on your robots.txt. Blocking a crawler affects whether that engine can use your pages as a live source, not whether ContextOwl can check what it says.

Only if you have a specific reason to, like keeping internal or paywalled pages out of training data. For a brand that wants AI visibility, the default answer is to allow the crawlers that feed the engines you care about, since a blocked crawler can’t cite you at all.

A proposed convention, put forward by Jeremy Howard of Answer.AI in 2024, for a Markdown file at yourdomain.com/llms.txt. It has an H1 with the site name, a short blockquote summary, and sections of links with one-line descriptions pointing to the pages you most want a language model to read. Think of it as a curated reading list for AI rather than a rulebook.

Google says its Search features, including AI Overviews and AI Mode, don’t use it, and that adding one won’t help or hurt your rankings there. OpenAI, Anthropic and Perplexity haven’t publicly committed to reading it when they answer questions either. Some developer tools and documentation workflows do use it. It’s cheap to add and low risk, but don’t expect it to move your citations on its own.

robots.txt says what crawlers may fetch. sitemap.xml lists every URL you want indexed. llms.txt is a short, hand-picked reading list in Markdown, with a description for each link. It doesn’t grant or deny access to anything. It just points a model at your best pages.

Your best evergreen pages: what you do, pricing, docs, key guides, about and FAQ. Leave out login pages, thin pages and near-duplicates, and keep the list short (a couple of dozen links at most). The generated draft pulls links from your homepage navigation, so reorder them and add a short description after each one, like “- [Pricing](url): what each plan includes”.

At the root of your domain: https://yourdomain.com/llms.txt, returning a 200 status as plain text or Markdown. Open that URL in a browser to confirm it loads. Update it whenever you add or remove a key page, and this tool will tell you if a file already exists so you can compare it with the fresh draft.

No. A report queries AI engines directly with your prompts; it doesn’t read your llms.txt. The file is a courtesy to the engines themselves, not an input ContextOwl depends on.

No, keep it short and curated — your best evergreen pages, not a full sitemap. A long, unfiltered list defeats the point of a hand-picked reading list.

A short, self-contained passage that answers a question without needing the text around it, usually one to three sentences right under a heading. Engines retrieve and quote passages rather than whole pages, and an answer-first passage is the easiest kind to lift accurately.

Several major AI crawlers have been reported to fetch raw HTML without executing JavaScript. If your content is rendered in the browser, the crawler may see an empty shell. This tool fetches your page without running JavaScript to mimic that. If it can’t find text, an engine probably can’t either.

It looks at your first H1, finds the first paragraph longer than 40 characters, and counts the body text. It passes if it finds that paragraph or at least 200 characters of text. It’s a coarse test for “is there anything extractable”. It doesn’t judge whether the paragraph is accurate, or whether it really answers the question the page targets.

Lead with the answer, then add the detail. Name the subject instead of writing “it” or “this”, so the sentence still makes sense on its own. Aim for roughly 40 to 60 words, include a concrete fact (a number, a name, a date), and put it near the top of the page under a heading that matches how people ask the question.

Yes. Clear headings, lists, tables and FAQPage structured data give engines clean boundaries around passages, which makes them easier to retrieve and quote. Structure helps extraction, but the words still have to answer the question.

No, it checks your own page, not an AI engine’s answer. To see a live AI answer and whether you’re named in it, use the Citation Snapshot tool or a full ContextOwl AI Visibility Report.

It’s a floor, not a target — enough text to prove something extractable exists on the page. A genuinely quotable answer is usually a focused, 40-60 word passage near the top, not just any 200 characters.

It’s JSON-LD markup using schema.org’s FAQPage type: a list of Question entities, each with an acceptedAnswer. It’s a machine-readable copy of your visible FAQ, so search engines and AI systems don’t have to guess where a question ends and its answer begins.

No. Google limited FAQ rich results to well-known government and health sites in August 2023, then stopped showing them in Search altogether from May 2026. The markup is still valid schema.org and other parsers can read it, but don’t add it expecting expandable FAQ snippets in Google Search.

No engine has said it requires it. What it gives you is a clean, unambiguous question-and-answer structure on top of your visible content. Treat it as a low-cost clarity signal, not a ranking lever. The visible FAQ text is what matters most.

The questions and answers must appear visibly on the same page. Don’t mark up hidden text, ads, or content that isn’t really an FAQ. Give every question a complete answer, and don’t repeat the same FAQ block across many pages. Marking up content users can’t see is the fastest way to have the markup ignored.

Paste the script tag into the head of the page that holds the FAQ. Anywhere in the body also works. Then validate it with the Schema Markup Validator (validator.schema.org) or Google’s Rich Results Test. This generator runs in your browser, so nothing you type is uploaded.

Yes. Every FAQ-bearing page on contextowl.com, including this one, uses exactly this schema.org FAQPage pattern, built from the same visible text you see on the page — not a separate, hidden copy.

They do different jobs. FAQ schema structures one page’s existing Q&A for machines. llms.txt is a short, site-wide reading list pointing at your best pages. Many sites use both; neither depends on the other.

It depends on the job. If you want to track visibility every day, a monitoring tool like Otterly, Peec AI or Profound is built for that. If you want to know where you stand today and what to fix, a one-time ContextOwl report does it for ₹1,799.

We try to be. Each page says where the other option is genuinely stronger, before we make our case, and every fact about them links to the page we read it on, with the date we checked.

Yes. A report shows what to fix and a monitoring tool shows whether it worked over time. They answer different questions.

Every fact about another tool comes from their own published pages, and each one links to its source with the date we read it. We say where they’re stronger before we say where we’re different. Prices in this category move fast, so we re-check them regularly.

Yes. Your score is free. No payment required. Only the full report, at ₹1,799, is a payment.

Yes, as it makes sense. Today this covers Profound, Otterly, Peec AI and Semrush AI, plus checking ChatGPT by hand — the tools people most often weigh against ContextOwl.

Whichever tool you already use or are closest to buying. If you haven’t tried anything yet, start with “Checking ChatGPT by hand” — it’s the free option most people try before any paid tool.

Only for one job. If you need daily tracking across many engines, or SSO and SOC 2, Profound is built for that and we aren’t. If you want a one-time diagnostic with a ranked fix list, ContextOwl covers that for a flat price.

When we checked, their pricing page listed a free trial: 10 prompts run once, ChatGPT only, no demo needed. Anything bigger is the Enterprise plan.

Their pricing page shows a free trial and a custom Enterprise plan, with no dollar amounts. You’d need to talk to them for a number.

The base report is ₹1,799, paid once. It covers ChatGPT, 10 prompts and one competitor — add more engines or competitors as you need them. Your score is free to see first, no payment required.

We last checked Profound’s pricing page on 3 October 2026. Plans in this category change often, so check theirs before you decide. The sources are listed above.

Yes, there’s nothing to cancel or migrate. ContextOwl doesn’t store a Profound history to import; you’d simply run a fresh report and start from today’s AI visibility picture.

No. ContextOwl is a self-serve, single-account tool with email sign-in — no SSO, SAML or compliance certification. If that’s a requirement, Profound’s Enterprise plan is built for it.

For a month, yes: Lite is $29 and tracks daily. For a year it’s $348 on monthly billing, or $300 annually, against ₹1,799 once. They aren’t the same product though. Otterly watches over time; ContextOwl gives you one detailed snapshot and a fix list.

Yes. Run a report to see what to fix, then use a monitoring tool to see whether it worked. They answer different questions.

No. It’s a point-in-time report. You can run it again whenever you like, and compare against an earlier report from your dashboard, but it doesn’t run on a schedule.

We last checked Otterly’s pricing page on 3 October 2026. Prices change, so check theirs before you decide. The sources are listed above.

Yes, that’s what it’s built for — daily tracking across its covered engines, starting at $29 a month. ContextOwl doesn’t track daily; it’s a point-in-time report you run when you want a fresh read.

Not yet. ContextOwl covers ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Claude. Otterly’s base plan includes Google AI Overviews and Copilot alongside ChatGPT and Perplexity.

If you want daily tracking and a shared dashboard, yes, that’s what it’s built for. If you want to know where you stand now and what to fix first, a single ContextOwl report is simpler and cheaper.

When we checked, Starter was $95 a month, Pro $245 and Advanced $495, as listed in USD, with Enterprise custom. Extra engines add to the monthly price. They may show prices in your local currency.

The base report is ₹1,799, paid once, and it includes ChatGPT. Add Gemini, Perplexity or Claude for ₹449 each. Your score is free to see first.

We last checked Peec AI’s published pricing on 3 October 2026. Their plans change, so check theirs before you decide. The source is listed above.

We didn’t find one stated on their pricing page. ContextOwl’s score and grade are free to see first, with no payment required, before you decide on the full report.

Yes. You pay per report, so you can run as many clients as you like with no seat count. Peec AI also sells separate agency plans, starting at $245 a month.

No. ContextOwl works on its own. Enter your site and competitors and you get a score in about 90 seconds.

Semrush’s help page lists $99 a month, covering one domain and 25 prompts, and says there’s no free trial. It’s also included in Semrush One plans.

The base report is ₹1,799, paid once. Your score is free to see first, no payment required.

We last checked Semrush’s help page on 3 October 2026. Plans and bundles change, so check theirs before you decide. The source is listed above.

It’s included in Semrush One plans. Outside of those, Semrush’s help page lists it at $99 a month on its own. Check your plan on Semrush’s side to be sure.

Yes. ContextOwl doesn’t require Semrush, or any other platform — enter your site and competitors and you get a score in about 90 seconds.

It’s accurate for that one answer, at that moment. AI answers can vary from run to run, so one reply is a sample, not a verdict. That’s the main limit of checking by hand.

Five to ten is enough to see a pattern. Word them the way a customer would, without your brand name.

Each engine draws on different sources and phrases things differently, so being named in one doesn’t mean you’re named in another.

When you want to compare yourself to competitors, see every engine at once, or get a list of what to fix. The base report is ₹1,799, and your score is free first.

Yes, the same way: open a fresh chat, ask without your brand name, and read the answer. Each engine has its own habits, so repeat the exercise per engine rather than assuming ChatGPT’s answer generalises.

Run your free AI Visibility Score first — about 90 seconds, no payment. If the gap looks worth acting on, unlock the full report for ₹1,799 to see competitors, sources and a ranked fix list.

Yes. You can add your logo, agency name and tagline, and they are applied to the report you deliver. Clients see your work rather than ours.

Yes. Run a report for each client or prospect, each with its own website, competitors and prompts. You pay per report, so there is no seat count and no plan to size up as your client list grows.

No. One report, one payment. Nothing renews and there is nothing to cancel, so the cost sits with the work you sell rather than a monthly bill. See the pricing

An in-browser report, a PDF you can forward and an XLSX tracker of the recommended fixes. You decide what to share and when, and you can talk them through it yourself.

It’s ranked and grouped by type (content, sources, technical readiness), so you can scope the pieces you deliver and flag the ones a client’s developer should handle. The tracker makes it easy to build a proposal from.

ChatGPT is included in the base report. You can add Gemini, Perplexity and Claude to show how each describes the client side by side.

You can for a quick look. It gets hard to defend once a client asks for the same questions run the same way, across engines and competitors, with sources counted. Here is the honest comparison. See how they compare

Be upfront about it. The report is a snapshot of what came back on the day, and the same question can be worded differently next time. Treat scores as a strong read, not a measurement to the decimal, and say so when you present.

We’d suggest not. The fixes are the changes most likely to make a brand easier to find and cite, but each engine makes its own call and none publish a schedule. Promise the work and the re-check, not the result.

Your AI visibility score, in about 90 seconds. No payment required. The full report, with the evidence, citations, competitor gaps and fix list, is one payment.

No. One report, one payment. There is nothing to cancel and nothing renews. Run it again whenever you want to check progress.

The base report is one payment, with ChatGPT, one competitor and 10 prompts. Extra competitors, engines and prompts are priced per item, so you add only what you need. There’s no contract, no seats and no renewal, so it can usually be expensed like any single purchase. See the pricing

ChatGPT is included in the base report. You can add Gemini, Perplexity and Claude, which show you how each one describes your brand side by side.

SEO tools track where your pages rank in a list of links. AI engines write one answer and name a few brands in it. ContextOwl reads those answers: whether you are named, how you are described, who sits next to you and which sources the engine leaned on. It sits alongside your SEO reporting, it does not replace it.

Yes. Every answer is shown as the engine wrote it, with how it describes your brand, so a wrong claim, an outdated detail or a lukewarm mention is easy to spot. We report what came back. We do not edit it or soften it.

You can, and for a quick look it is fine. It gets hard to trust once you want the same questions asked the same way, across engines and competitors, with sources counted. Here is the honest comparison. See how they compare

A visibility grade and an executive summary up front, then the evidence behind it: the answers word for word, how you compare with your named competitors, and a ranked list of fixes. It comes as an in-browser report and a PDF you can forward.

We can’t promise either. The fixes are the changes most likely to make you easier for AI engines to find and cite, ranked by priority. What an engine says is its own call, and we don’t have numbers linking a score to revenue. Run it again after you ship changes and see what moved.

It varies. Some engines pick up new content quickly and some take a while, and none of them publish a schedule. That’s why a second run a few weeks later is the honest way to see progress, rather than expecting an overnight change.

Treat them as a strong read, not a measurement to the decimal. Ask the same question twice and the wording shifts. ContextOwl asks a set of prompts the same way for you and your competitors and shows you what came back on the day, so you are comparing like with like.

Once to see where you stand, then again after you have shipped a round of fixes, or before a launch or a board review. It’s a snapshot you run when you want one, so there is no schedule to keep and nothing that renews.

The fixes are grouped by type, so you can route them. Content and messaging changes go to your content team, and structured data, crawler access and page changes go to a developer. The XLSX tracker lists every fix, so each person can pick theirs off and tick it done.

The ones you choose. We suggest rivals from your website and you edit the list: remove any, add your own. The base report includes one competitor, and you can add more, so you can see side by side who gets named when you don’t.

No. You paste your website and confirm the competitors and prompts we suggest. The report explains every finding in plain words, and the fixes are grouped by type, so the technical ones are easy to hand to a developer.

Yes. It comes as an in-browser report, a PDF you can forward and an XLSX tracker of the recommended fixes, so the people doing the work can tick them off.

Those track where your pages sit in a list of links. AI engines write one answer and name a few brands in it. ContextOwl reads those answers: whether you are named, how you are described, who sits beside you and which sources the engine used. Keep your SEO tools; this covers what they can’t see.

Real. We send your prompts to the engines and record what came back, with the sources they cited. Nothing is modelled or estimated. The report shows the wording word for word so you can check it yourself.

Yes. We suggest prompts from your website and you edit them: remove any, write your own, or add more. The base report covers 10 prompts, and you can add more in packs of 10.

ChatGPT is included in the base report. You can add Gemini, Perplexity and Claude, and the report shows how each describes you side by side.

Recommended changes grouped by type, in priority order: content gaps, sources you should be cited from, and technical readiness for AI crawlers. The XLSX tracker lists every one so you can assign and tick them off.

No. One report, one payment. There is nothing to cancel and nothing renews. Your score is free, and extra competitors, engines and prompts are priced per item. See the pricing

You can, and for a quick look it is fine. It gets hard to trust once you want the same questions asked the same way, across engines and competitors, with sources counted. Here is the honest comparison. See how they compare

Treat them as a strong read, not a measurement to the decimal. Ask the same question twice and the wording shifts. We ask every prompt the same way for you and your competitors, so you are comparing like with like on the day it ran.

It shows you what the engines said and which sources they cited when they named the competitor, and where you were missing. That points to the likely reasons. We don’t claim to know an engine’s internal logic, so treat it as evidence, not a verdict.

We can’t promise that. The fixes are the changes most likely to make you easier to find and cite, ranked by priority, but each engine makes its own call. Run it again after you ship changes and see what moved.

For some fixes, yes. The list is grouped by type, so the content and outreach items stay with you and the technical ones, like crawler access and structured data, are easy to hand to a developer.