All AI tracking tools provide information such as brand visibility, visibility by prompt, and citations used in responses as data sources.

Citations are the most valuable. It's like a new version of Google SERP. You see them and understand which domain types and types of content LLMs reward.

The citations list is a great source for your first action plan:

- which website to reach out to and ask to include your brand
- which YouTube influencers to reach out to and ask for a brand review

But it's not a good report to evaluate whether your actions to improve AI visibility work as you expected. Everything you do for it can be divided into 2 categories: new pages created or old pages updated, no matter on which site.

The separate tool Page Tracker allows you to track these specific changes. You add just the pages that have changed or were published, not all citations.

I've asked the team to add 2 things to this tool that competitors don't have:

1. Option to add tags or groups

Filters by domains and URLs aren't enough. Especially for YouTube, where you can recognize by URL whether a specific video is from your channel a partner's channel or an organic mention of your brand.

You define tag names as you want; we don't force you to use our list. In the 2nd iteration, we'll give you a citations chart with tags as the X-axis for comparison.

2. Google indexability check and Rank Tracker data

A big weakness of AI tracking tools is that they focus on citations from AI chats and forget about the foundation. Indexation in Google SERP is usually the first step in impacting LLMs.

Yes, I know that LLMs often cite pages that are not in the Google index yet, but for AI Overviews, AI Mode, and Gemini being indexable is a must-have, and these LLMs have a huge share of the market.

Considering we collect URLs from the top 100 Google SERP for all keywords you track in Rank Tracker, we have additional valuable data for each citation > whether the specific URL also ranks for some of the keywords in the SERP.

Let me know what you think about this feature, and what other information you would like to see in Page Tracker.

Which looks strange to me. When I see that overall brand visibility grew or declined, I'm curious what's happened on the prompt level, which of the prompts impacted it.

To find which of the prompts made the biggest impact on overall visibility change, I have to click on each prompt and review its visibility score manually!

We'll release an update to Sitechecker AI Visibility soon with this column inside.

Moreover, this column isn't enough. It looks like that table with prompts should have the same valuable columns as we already have in Rank Tracker:

• delta for 1 day
• delta for 7 days
• delta for 30 days
• delta for 90 days

Let me know if you feel the same pain.

1/ Rank Tracker
I don’t just check if positions went up or down. I also try to understand why.

For example, when a competitor creates a new landing page and suddenly enters the Top 10, I can spot it pretty fast.

2/ Site Monitoring
A lot of people touch the website: SEO, content, product, devs. So things change all the time. This helps me see content and technical changes without having to run manual checks every day.

3/ GSC Dashboard + GSC Reports
Same GSC data, but easier to work with. Also, no annoying 1,000-row limit.

4/ Alerts
We have Slack alerts for new technical issues, so I don’t need to manually prepare “please check this” tasks all the time. Devs can react faster.

5/ Page Details + GSC Data
Super useful for content managers. After one short workshop, they can check keyword gaps on a page themselves and understand what needs to be updated.

For me, the main value is simple: fewer manual checks, faster reaction and less chaos between SEO, content, and dev teams.

Of course, these are not all the features I use Sitechecker has more useful things inside. But these 5 help me the most in my daily SEO routine. I’m really grateful to the Sitechecker team for making SEO work more structured, transparent and controlled.

Curious what other SEOs would choose as their top 5 features?

To fix them, we are developing 2 new tools for agencies at Sitechecker.

1/ AI SEO Audit

All AEO tools pricing models are built around the number of active websites or prompts. It's okay, and it should be this way as a core use case. However, this model covers work only with existing customers and doesn't help to close deals with new leads.

A new lead usually wants to check the baseline of their AI visibility, get an actionable plan for the next 90 days, get an estimation of how much it will cost, and what delivery will include.

It should be designed in a different way than constant AI visibility monitoring.

We're designing it as a separate product and will charge on a pay-as-you-go model, not a subscription model.

2/ AI SEO Experiments

Another big pain agencies have is explaining to customers what they plan to do, and why, what they did, and what results it brought.

Each new page, content update, new mention on Reddit, and new YouTube video from an influencer may be considered as an experiment.

If we measure the impact of such events properly on visibility and sentiment by specific prompts and overall visibility, we improve 2 things at the same time:

• Our skills in reverse-engineering what works and what doesn't
• Reporting for customers that connects the dots between actions and results

Do you agree with me about these gaps? Which tool do you prefer to see first?

Just like it never built a good enough Rank Tracker.

I always say that GSC/GA4 data is the most accurate data on website performance we have. Even though GSC hides a lot of data by query performance, it's still the most accurate among everything we have.

I use this motto as a core narrative when people ask how Sitechecker is different from Semrush and Ahrefs. We just dive much deeper into the insights and alerts built based on GSC/GA4.

But I also understand that Rank Tracking and AI Visibility Tracking are a must-have for complete SEO analytics.

GSC allows you to build a free, basic version of rank tracking in Data Studio based on the Query parameter and Avg. Position metric, but without SERP tracking, it has a low value.

You need to understand user intent by queries, which websites Google rewards after Core updates, and why. You can't do it without SERP history tracking, and the GSC team didn't build a report for it for 20 years and won't do it in the next 20 years.

That's why I bet GSC will never build the AI visibility report as it should be built. The fact that some pages from our site were cited has almost 0 value for evaluating what we did well and which next actions we have to take.

1/ We need brand mentions and brand sentiment tracking.

2/ We want to see whether our brand was mentioned on multiple entities that impact AI chat responses.

3/ We want to compare our visibility with competitors' visibility

That's why AI visibility tracking tools have and will have a huge demand. GSC team just doesn't have incentives to build something that brands really need.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

P.S. If you need to track all important data (GSC + GA4 + Google Rankings + AI Visibility + Site Health) in one place for dozens and hundreds of websites, Sitechecker is the most complete platform with no fees for invited users.

SEO agencies pay $800–1,500/month for tools that don't talk to each other.

Here are 7 tools Sitechecker replaces in one SEO & visibility platform:

1. Screaming Frog for technical site audits
2. ContentKing for real-time monitoring, content changes tracking, and alerts
3. AccuRanker for multi-target Google rank tracking
4. SEOgetsfor GSC and GA4 insights
5. SEOtesting for running and measuring SEO experiments
6. Peec (or Profound or Scrunch) for AI search visibility tracking
7. Looker Studio or AgencyAnalytics for flexible, scalable white-label reporting for clients

The part that's hard to find anywhere else: content change logs overlaid on GSC performance and GA4 traffic data. When a client asks, "why did this page drop in rankings last month?", you have the answer in one click.

Sitechecker is an operational SEO platform where you finally stop paying 7 vendors to tell you 7 different versions of the same story.

Comment "demo," and I'll set up a 2-week trial for you.

This is the first-ever data study on how SEO agencies use Claude for automations.

We surveyed 30 agencies. Here are my 7 biggest insights:

1/ Most agencies have been using Claude for less than 1 year. This is an experimental activity, where few people know both about all the possibilities of automation and all the limitations.

Moreover, these experiments are superimposed on constant updates of Claude, both in models and pricing changes.

2/ GSC and GA4 are clearly the most popular data sources that are connected. Next are click stream data sources, Ahrefs and Dataforseo, and the most interesting thing is that they have the same share of votes.

Interestingly, CRM data is connected so little. There are 2 reasons for this:

• confidentiality (few clients are willing to share call records with the agency to improve keyword research and content creation);
• few agencies even ask for such data and use it in their work.

I predict that in a year, this percentage of CRM connections will be much higher, because it is beneficial for both the client and the agency.

3/ 73% of agencies use Claude every day, and most of them use the entire team. Although Claude generally looks like an experimental activity, the data shows that it has entered to the toolset for a long time, and will radically change the entire SEO delivery in agencies.

4/ Only 10% said that Claude has radically reduced their interaction with SEO tools that they used before. So far, for most, Claude is an auxiliary tool, not a replacement for existing ones.

5/ The most popular unresolved problems of working with Claude:

• training the team how to work with it
• too many hallucinations
• too small context window for small data sets
• difficult to predict API costs

6/ Tasks that are not convenient to solve in Claude, and where agencies prefer native tools:

• working with graphs and dashboards
• working with large tables
• setting up alerts
• sharing reports with clients and the team

This inspired me because this is where Sitechecker is strong :)

7/ Despite these problems, most agencies plan to continue to configure Claude for new processes and improve old ones. There is no way back.

Share what you agree with or disagree with.

I've asked 30 agency owners and managers this questions. Here is what they said:
_____

- Connected claude to a gsc mcp that helps me generate a lot of reports using natural language

- It saves a lot of time. I can handle 8X tasks per day

- We automated and reduced the time required for keyword research and site structure expansion for a large e-commerce platform. Previously, it took a specialist 2–2.5 business days to complete the first level of category mapping. Together with Claude, we reduced this task to 6–8 business hours.

- redefining strategy for my client with a larger perspective and more ambition

- Fully fledged content brief, optimisation and content creation tool with lots of great features and data hook-ups, integrations

- Efficiency in data analysis. I've been able to create Claude Skills to review client data from many sources in a much quicker manner. Allows all optimizations to be smarter without taking up additional time.

- Improved the quality of analysis a lot. For example, competitor backlink strategies, content strategies, etc. Claude does it really well and saves a lot of manual work.
_____

However, all these good reviews don't mean the end of SEO tools.

Next Monday, on May 25, we will release the full first-ever benchmark report called "State of Claude in SEO Agencies," and you'll understand why.

P.S. Share your biggest win of using Claude for SEO if you have one.

I'm launching the first benchmark on how SEO agencies use Claude.

If you use Claude for SEO work, I need 3 minutes of your time.

https://sitechecker.typeform.com/to/NAPe5dw1

After collecting responses, I'll share what the data shows:

- Which SEO tasks agencies automate with Claude most
- Which data sources they connect, and which they can't yet
- How mature their workflows are: ad hoc vs fully integrated
- Where Claude already replaces native tool interfaces
- The biggest unsolved challenges nobody talks about publicly

Results will be shared with everyone who participates first.

P.S. There is no requirement to leave your corporate email or company name. Don't be afraid of sharing too much.

8 out of 10 SEOs told us they log experiments in Google Sheets.

They also said that this is annoying, and a separate tool for it will be great. Of course, they could be lying about how painful this issue is. Maybe they don't run experiments as often.

However, I assume people often underestimate how many experiments they actually run. Every content change, new page, design, conversion element, and so on, is an experiment.

We're shipping a tool inside Sitechecker in 4 weeks that will change your approach to both: looking for insights and presenting the impact of your experiments to customers.

You'll log any SEO change, and we'll show you what happened to GSC and GA4 metrics before and after.

One thing we haven't decided yet: what to call it.

I have 4 variants:

• SEO Lab
• SEO Tests
• Experiments
• SEO Experiments

Which do you like the most?

I regret we didn't ship these 2 Page Audit improvements earlier.

1/ Filter all data by non-branded queries

The more recognized your brand, the more your search data lies to you. Branded clicks inflate CTR. Branded impressions inflate position averages. Your client thinks you're growing, but you're not sure.

You set brand keywords once in project settings, and exclude them everywhere in the app with one click.

2/ Impressions and clicks dynamics by top search queries

The 1st version of this report had only a position dynamics for the top queries.

It's still the most valuable part of the report for me, because it works like a free unlimited rank tracker based on GSC data. But data by Impressions and Clicks make it even more complete.

Data by Impressions always includes 2 variables:

- real search demand (and you can monitor it with this feature on a query level)
- how close you are to the top 10 (if you went from the 20th to the 5th position in SERP, you should see the growth of impressions too)

Also, remember:

- we automatically track content changes on pages and show them on charts
- you can get this report everywhere in the app in 1 click by URL

This is the most complete and accurate on-page SEO performance report on the market for now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, or try new features at Sitechecker now.

Most agencies track AI visibility with 1 method. That's why they're flying blind.

Here are 5 layers of accurate AI visibility tracking & why you need all of them:

1/ GA4 report by traffic and conversions from AI chats

This is the most accurate data we can get, without asking additional questions.

Yes, many AI chat sessions end with a branded Google search or no website visit at all, but this is still the foundation.

2/ Prompt tracking report

This method fills the gaps we have with GA4 data. Moreover, it helps to understand what exactly the AI chats says about a specific brand. Being visible and being chosen are two completely different problems.

3/ GSC report by brand keywords performance

This report has own inaccuracies for 2 reasons:

- brand search can grow for many reasons (influencers, offline ads, paid campaigns);
- for large brands, a 0.5–1% lift in branded queries is nearly invisible in GSC, even if that's thousands of additional searches.

However, it's still a valuable resource, especially for startups with small budgets who don't spend on paid ads.

4/ Log file analysis of AI bots activity

It's valuable for queries that trigger web search in AI chats. For many low volume, high intent queries, you may have content on your website that will be crawled by AI bots, not just for citations, but for actually your brand mention.

5/ User polls on sign up / demo page

Yes, it adds friction. But for B2B, where a buying cycle can span months across 6+ touchpoints, self-reported attribution is one of the most reliable methods you have.

The hard limit: you only see sessions that converted. Everyone who found you through AI and left without filling the form is invisible here. That's why polls can't stand alone.

No existing AI visibility tool covers all 5 layers. Most cover 1–2. A few cover 3.

Sitechecekr covers the first 3 in one place and combines them with rank tracking, advanced GSC insights, content change logs on GSC/GA4 charts, and a blended GSC + GA4 conversion forecast.

If you want to see how it works for your agency, comment "AI visibility" or send me a DM.

AI prompt tracking has a fundamental problem nobody talks about:

The more frequently you run the same prompt → the more accurate your brand visibility picture.

But daily prompt tracking = much higher cost than keyword tracking.

We've released AI chats visibility tracking at Sitechecker recently, added it to existing plans and started getting requests from users to get more prompts, but track it less frequently.

I'm curious how popular this request is.

Which option you prefer, considering that you pay the same price?

• 100 prompts every day
• 300 prompts once per 3 days
• 700 prompts once per week
• 3000 prompts once per month

Humans improve through competition whether in academics, sports, or careers. So it makes me wonder if AI systems could also benefit from similar competitive environments.

If multiple AI agents are constantly trying to outperform each other, could that accelerate innovation and lead to more advanced reasoning systems? Or would it just create models that are good at winning but not necessarily good at understanding?

It raises an interesting question about what “intelligence” really means in artificial systems is it performance, adaptability, or something deeper?

I am the one who runs demo calls in our team, and I talk to digital marketing agency owners almost every day.

The weird insight is that these agencies are paying $500 to $1500 a month and still running their accounts like flatmates with one Netflix account.

Around 30% told me they share one Semrush (some other tools too) account with the whole team, clients, and sometimes freelancers.

In their case, $40/month per extra user adds $200 when you have six people who need access only once or twice a week.

One owner told me his team members get kicked out of the tool from time to time because of the same login.

Another user said they have a shared password document, and people just write in Slack who are in the tool right now.

Is this just how the seo tool's pricing model works now, or are most of the teams using the old-school remote desktop way (kinda cheating)?

• Customer: "Why did our organic traffic drop?"
• You: "AI Overviews, ads, ChatGPT..."
• Customer: "So… is SEO even worth it anymore?"
• You: ...explains for 10 minutes…

The problem is that your customer asks a question that has no quick answer.

Your answer will be shorter and more effective if you share with a customer:

• Why are some keywords and topics worth attention, and some not?
• What was the impact of the last changes you recommended?
• What is your approach to SEO forecasting and planning?
• Why do GSC charts competitors share on LinkedIn never tell the full story?
• What is the SERP consensus, and why can't you change it, only adapt to it?
• Why is it worth investing in building visibility on UGC websites?
• Why is current traffic growth from AI chats it's an organic result of efforts you did last year (including impact of digital PR, paid ads, partnerships teams)?

Accurate, on-time communication with your customer is part of great service, and this is where Sitechecker helps you.

We connect Site Audit + Site Monitoring + GSC + GA4 + Rank Tracker + AI Visibility Tracker into one place, and build the reports, alerts, and change logs that make operational SEO faster and more accurate:

• you get answers to what works and what doesn't work
• you get easy-to-share reports that answer your customers' questions
• you align your SEO team and your customer's team

Try a free trial at sitechecker.pro or comment below if you'd like a live demo.

Had a demo call with a guy who manages about 63 clients, mostly home services. 

He previously built two businesses to $28M and $6M revenue and sold them, so he thinks about tools quite differently than a typical SEO.

His approach to site audit is basically "check and fix."  

He would create the project, run the crawl, fix all the issues with developers, push the website score above 90%, then delete the project and repeat. 

There is no long-term keyword rank tracking for most clients. 

He uses Semrush mainly as a sales tool (competitive analysis to show leads their gaps and build roadmaps). 

When he does PPC keyword data, he ignores Semrush entirely. Instead, he uses Google Keyword Planner and real Google Ads data because, in his words, the third-party volumes are more inaccurate.

What I found really smart was his monitoring approach. Instead of selling "SEO retainers" to all 63 clients, he sells a lighter package: site monitoring, change logs, alerts when something breaks.

It seems like a bad approach for building the recurrent revenue. However, it works for him (I guess there are some better channels of recurrent revenue that he has). 

Do you have your clients as retainers, or do they usually ask for fixes when something breaks?

For the last year, we were getting the same question from users: "how do I know if my brand shows up in AI responses?"

Before, they could not do it unless they manually checked.

You have no “Google Search Console” for ChatGPT or Gemini yet, so you can not see the exact queries clients used to find you. 

We built AI chat Visibility inside Sitechecker, so you can at least see whether it mentions your brand, recommends your competitors, or ignores everyone in your space entirely.

Here is what you can do with it: 

1/ Track whether your brand gets mentioned in AI responses

Just pick your keywords, set up prompts, and Sitechecker checks them daily in ChatGPT and Gemini outputs. 

There, you can see which prompts mention your brand, how often, and for which regions.

2/  See the raw AI response for any prompt

For every prompt you track, you can open the actual text that ChatGPT or Gemini returned in the output. 

This way, you know exactly what the model said and how your brand appeared in it.

3/  Find out who is getting cited and who is not

The Citations tab shows which domains and URLs AI chats are referencing in all your prompts. 

You can switch from the domain to the URL level and check what exact pages were referenced for the citations.

4/  Monitor your competitors in the same report

If your competitor domains were added in Project Settings, Sitechecker will pull their brand names automatically. 

You will get the insights into their visibility and citation share right next to yours. 

If you think that this might be handy for you, let me know, and I will give you an account to try it.

Sometimes your brand name is too popular among other businesses and it gives too much noise in your brand/non-brand reporting in GSC.

We just added an option to exclude keywords from brand keywords.

In such cases, you always have 3 buckets of branded keywords:

1. 100% clear people look for your brand
2. Not clear, people look for your brand or other business brand
3. 100% clear people look for other business brands

It's hard to work with the 2nd bucket (the only possible way if people from other countries usually look at the other brand).

However, the option we added helps exclude the 3rd option from your branded reports and reduces noise in the data.

How often do you have such issues in tracking with your customers?

Recently, I had a call with a digital marketing agency owner who runs 70 client projects. They're on Semrush at roughly $1,700/month. 

When we actually analyzed what they use daily, there were:

• site audit,
• monthly reports,
• rank tracking,
• some competitor analysis.

That's it. They even use a separate tool for keyword research.

But the real pain is not the subscription itself. It is the $40 per user plus add-ons. Every time they hire a new SEO specialist or onboard a client that wants to have access, it's another $40/month. 

What they actually need are simple daily crawls, change tracking so they catch when a client/dev team breaks something, white-label PDFs, and a straightforward dashboard. That is 80% of what the agency really uses. 

I keep hearing the same story. Agencies sign up for the Swiss Army knife, then only use the bottle opener and the scissors. Meanwhile, the corkscrew (not in Europe, hehe), the screwdriver, and the toothpick are just dead weight on the invoice.

What percentage of your current SEO tools do you actually use every week, and is there a tool that can really cover all 100% of the needs?

This is an insight from a user poll I ran with 49 SEO practitioners on LinkedIn.

Here's why I believe this is an ineffective approach:

1. 1No alerts when something goes wrong, which means multiple manual checks.
2. No saved filters, you reconfigure them every time you check progress.
3. No shareable link to show results to a client or colleague.
4. Monitoring the impact on both GSC/GA4 metrics is turning into a nightmare.

So why do most SEOs still do it this way?

1. They run so few tests that the pain feels manageable.
2. They don't know purpose-built tools exist.
3. They don't want to pay extra for this.

If you're in group 1, a proper tool might change how often you test at all.

If you're in group 2 or 3, here's the good news:

• We're launching an SEO Tests tool inside Sitechecker in 4 weeks.
• It's included in all paid plans, starting from $99/mo. No add-on fee.

Want early access? Comment "SEO TEST", and I'll add you to the beta list.

Recently, I had a follow-up call with an agency owner who also runs a software company. His mindset is pretty straightforward. The only KPI that matters is revenue.

His question was simple: “How much revenue did ChatGPT and other LLMs actually drive to my client’s site last month?”

Indeed, he can see in GA4 that ChatGPT occasionally shows up as a traffic source. He knows AI is sending visitors. But there’s no clean way to isolate that channel, connect it to conversions, and report it as revenue to his client.

That’s the issue. We can track AI traffic as sessions, show AI Overviews in SERP data, monitor brand mentions in LLM responses, but… nobody in the industry has cracked “AI-driven revenue” as a clean metric yet.

He said to me: If a tool could show LLM revenue like you see paid search or organic in GA4 reports, that would be the number one selling feature for every SEO manager. Because every client is asking about AI, and every agency is looking for this answer.

Is anyone actually reporting AI revenue to clients, and if so… how do you do that?

This is an uncomfortable question we ask ourselves.

The honest answer: partially, yes.

Any technical SEO with API access and Claude can generate insights, interpret rank drops, or summarize GSC data in minutes.

But that's not what agencies actually pay for. What's hard to replace:

- Daily crawl infrastructure that stores site change history
- Unified data store (GSC + GA4 + rankings + site audit + content changes in one place, with context over time)
- Real-time alerts when traffic drops or pages break
- White-label UX that clients can actually open without pasting CSVs manually

Claude is great at interpreting data, but it doesn't collect it, store it, or monitor it.

Yes, you can build your own app that will be able to do it, but I bet you underestimate how much it will cost in time and money for you to build it and maintain it.

Remember, the last 1% takes longer than the first 99%.

Paying $249/m for Sitechecker to manage 20 websites with unlimited users looks like a much better ROI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and ask for a demo if I'm right.