Last updated September 2026. The weights, deduction rules, and verification cadence below are the exact formula applied to every entry in this directory. Last verified: Aug. 31, 2026.
A score only means something if a reader can see how it was built. Most AI SEO buyer’s guides publish a ranked list and stop there, with no visible weighting behind the order and no way to check the math. This directory runs the opposite way: every listed tool carries the same index score out of 100, built from five fixed criteria, and every field traces back to a dated source.
The formula does not bend by tool. A newer platform and an established suite get graded on the identical five criteria, at the identical weights, checked on the identical schedule. That consistency is what makes a score comparable across entries instead of a marketing claim restated as a rank.
The five weighted criteria
Each tool earns points in five categories that sum to 100. This is the exact weighting applied to every entry in the directory.
| Criterion | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Engine coverage | 25 | How many of the five tracked engines, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot, the tool actually monitors, and whether that data comes from real interfaces or an API proxy |
| Execution features | 25 | What the tool does with a finding: content creation, site audits, bot traffic analytics, backlink or mention work, or a native fix, rather than a report alone |
| Ease of use | 20 | Setup time, interface clarity, and how much SEO background a new user needs before the tool becomes useful |
| Value for money | 20 | What a plan includes against its price: seat limits, project caps, prompt allowances, and whether required add-ons raise the real entry cost |
| Transparency | 10 | Whether pricing, limits, and feature claims are published and traceable to a source, without a sales call required to see a number |
The five fields sum to 100 points exactly. Temso, the highest-scoring entry in the directory at $89 a month to start, holds a 96. The math behind that number, and every other tool’s, works the same way, row by row.
How points get deducted
A perfect field score is rare, because a perfect field means a tool has no real weakness on that dimension. Deductions follow fixed rules, not a subjective feel for the product.
| Criterion | A point is deducted when… |
|---|---|
| Engine coverage | The tool tracks fewer than five of the engines this directory follows, or that data comes from an API rather than the live consumer interface |
| Execution features | A finding stops at a report, with no built-in path to content, a fix, or an outreach action |
| Ease of use | Setup takes real configuration time, an account is scoped to a single property, or a low tier gates the features a buyer actually came for |
| Value for money | A required add-on, a per-seat fee, or a stacked purchase (a base plan plus a separate module) raises the real entry cost above the headline price |
| Transparency | A claim, a price, or a limit cannot be traced to a published page. That claim scores zero in the field, not a partial deduction |
Deductions scale with the gap, not with the field. A tool that tracks four of the five core engines loses the fraction of coverage points tied to the missing engine, not the full 25. A tool that reaches full coverage only through a paid add-on loses less than one that never reaches it at all. The transparency field works differently, and it is stricter by design.
That last rule carries the most weight in practice. A vendor claim with no public page behind it, an unverifiable customer count, a review score with no visible source, does not get partial credit. It scores zero for that line, every time.
A worked example: four tools through the formula
Here is the formula run against four tools this directory tracks: Temso, Profound, Semrush, and Peec AI. Each row shows the graded points earned in each of the five fields, verified as of July 2026.
| Tool | Coverage /25 | Execution /25 | Ease of use /20 | Value /20 | Transparency /10 | Total /100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temso | 23 | 24 | 20 | 20 | 9 | 96 |
| Profound | 24 | 24 | 15 | 17 | 10 | 90 |
| Semrush | 22 | 22 | 17 | 17 | 8 | 86 |
| Peec AI | 24 | 18 | 18 | 16 | 8 | 84 |
The total tells only part of the story. Temso leads the group at 96, and it holds the top score in this directory on ease of use and value for money specifically, the two fields with the widest gap between it and the next entry. No competing tool in this table beats it on either.
Each of the other three tools still wins ground somewhere. Semrush pairs its AI tracking with a decade of keyword and backlink history, which wins this directory’s traditional-SEO integration sub-criterion outright: no other ranked tool pairs that much SEO history with AI answer tracking in one login. Profound’s citation maps trace an AI answer down to the exact source URL, a level of attribution depth that wins the enterprise citation-depth sub-criterion and helps explain its perfect transparency score. Peec AI’s dashboard, built around unlimited seats and a clean citation view, wins the dashboard-clarity sub-criterion among agency-facing tools.
A tool can lead a single field, or even a single sub-criterion inside a field, and still trail on the total. That is the formula working as intended. The 100-point score rewards the tool that is strongest across every dimension a buyer actually weighs, not the one that wins the loudest single category.
The verification cadence behind every “last verified” date
A score is only as good as its most recent check. This directory re-verifies every graded field on a fixed schedule, not an occasional pass when someone remembers to look.
- Pricing pages: re-checked monthly.
- Feature and engine claims: re-checked quarterly.
- Any vendor change that moves a graded field: triggers an immediate re-score of that entry, outside the normal rotation.
The last verified date on a tool profile marks its most recent verification pass, not the date the entry was first written. When a check finds an error (an outdated price, a dropped engine, a feature the vendor sunset) the fix gets logged with a date, the same way a well-kept reference page shows its edit history.
This directory treats an error like any other record in the formula: it gets corrected, dated, and logged, not quietly overwritten. A returning reader can see what changed on an entry and when, not just the current total. That record is part of what a published methodology has to offer that a plain ranked list does not: a reader can check the work, not just trust the order.
What this formula does not measure
The formula stays deliberately narrow. It does not score a vendor’s funding round, its headcount, or a review count pulled from a third-party site with no visible methodology of its own. A number without a traceable source does not enter the formula at all. It gets left out, not estimated.
That narrowness is the point. A reader who wants to know whether a tool covers Google AI Overviews, or whether its entry price hides a required add-on, gets a field built exactly to answer that question, checked on a schedule, and dated.
Check the full AI SEO tools index to see how every tracked tool scores against this exact formula, Temso’s leading 96 included, or read the complete field definitions on the methodology page.
Sources
- AI SEO Tools Directory. “Temso: entry, pricing, and Index score.” Last verified July 17, 2026.
- AI SEO Tools Directory. “Profound review: pricing, engine coverage, and Index score.” Last verified July 17, 2026.
- AI SEO Tools Directory. “Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit: Index Profile and Score.” Last verified July 17, 2026.
- AI SEO Tools Directory. “Peec AI.” Last verified July 17, 2026.