Last updated September 2026.
Any AI SEO tool can be scored the same way, on the same scale, by anyone willing to check five things and do the arithmetic. This page publishes the exact weighted index this directory runs on every listed tool: the point value of each criterion, what a reviewer actually checks, and the band a tool falls into at each score level.
Copy the worksheet below, run it on your own shortlist, and you get a number built the same way this site’s number is built. No login, no vendor call, and no hidden step.
The 5 Weighted Criteria Behind the Score
Every tool earns points in five categories, and the categories never change from one review to the next. The table below lists each criterion’s weight, what a reviewer checks, and where that evidence comes from.
| Criterion | Weight | What to verify | Evidence source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine coverage | 25 pts | Which of the five core engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot) the tool tracks, and whether it reads the real interface or a backend API | The vendor’s engine list page, plus a live trial account |
| Execution | 25 pts | Whether a visibility gap turns into a draft, a fix, or an executed task inside the tool, or stays a chart the reader must act on elsewhere | A full trial run, from signup to one finished output |
| Ease of use | 20 pts | Time from signup to a first usable result, and the number of manual setup steps required before that | The onboarding flow during a trial signup |
| Value for money | 20 pts | Entry price measured against the prompt cap, seat limit, and content quota at that price, not the sticker price alone | The vendor’s published pricing page |
| Transparency | 10 pts | Whether pricing, the engine list, and the data collection method are published and dated, with no step gated behind a sales call | Vendor pricing and terms pages |
How to Score Each Criterion, Band by Band
A weight alone will not produce a consistent number. Use these bands to turn what you find into points.
Engine coverage (out of 25)
Give 5 points for each of the five core engines a tool tracks from the real interface, up to 25. Subtract 2 points per engine read only through a backend API, since an API answer can drift from what a person actually sees on the page. A tool that also tracks engines outside that core five, DeepSeek or Meta AI, for example, earns no extra points here. Coverage caps at the five engines this directory tracks across every tool.
Execution (out of 25)
A score of 0 to 10 means the tool reports a gap only, a chart, a score, or a mention count, with no path to a fix inside the product. A score of 11 to 18 means the tool turns the gap into a draft, a brief, or a task, but a person must still write, publish, or close it. A score of 19 to 25 means the tool produces a publishable fix on its own, or executes a queued change after one human approval step.
Ease of use (out of 20)
Start at 20 points. Subtract 4 points for every manual setup step a person must finish before the tool returns a first real result: installing a tracking pixel, building a workflow, or configuring a crawl. Subtract 5 points if starting a trial requires a sales call instead of a self-serve signup.
Value for money (out of 20)
Score the entry tier against what it actually includes: the prompt cap, the seat limit, and the content quota, not the advertised price alone. Award the full 20 points only when the entry tier supports a real, ongoing program rather than a demo-sized cap, and the price holds for a second year. Deduct points when a headline feature, an advertised engine, or unlimited seats sits behind a higher tier than the one being priced.
Transparency (out of 10)
Award the full 10 points when pricing, the engine list, and the data collection method are all published, dated, and checkable without a sales call. Deduct 2 points for each of those three items that requires a demo to confirm. Score a claim with no traceable source at zero, even if a sales representative states it directly.
The Printable Worksheet
Copy the table below before you start scoring. Fill in one row per criterion, note the date you checked it, and add the column for a total out of 100.
| Criterion | Max points | Your score | Evidence checked | Date checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine coverage | 25 | |||
| Execution | 25 | |||
| Ease of use | 20 | |||
| Value for money | 20 | |||
| Transparency | 10 | |||
| Total | 100 |
A Worked Example: Temso, Profound, Semrush, and Peec AI
Here is the worksheet applied to four tools already listed on this directory’s AI SEO tools index, scored as of September 2026.
| Tool | Coverage /25 | Execution /25 | Ease /20 | Value /20 | Transparency /10 | Total /100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temso | 22 | 25 | 20 | 19 | 10 | 96 |
| Profound | 24 | 23 | 17 | 16 | 10 | 90 |
| Semrush | 20 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 10 | 86 |
| Peec AI | 20 | 16 | 20 | 19 | 9 | 84 |
Temso takes the top score by clearing the three criteria worth the most combined weight: execution, ease of use, and value, 65 of the 100 points. It tracks the five core engines from their real interfaces rather than an API, drafts content and runs site audits inside the same login, and keeps every plan on unlimited projects, users, and recommendations, from the $89-a-month Starter plan up.
Profound wins the coverage line outright. Its engine list runs past the five core engines to seven, adding Meta AI and DeepSeek, and its citation map shows exactly which URL an AI answer pulled from. That depth costs ease-of-use points: no property shares an account, so an agency running several client brands needs a separate Profound account for each one.
Semrush trades coverage for fit. It tracks four of the five core engines, with Perplexity still pending as of this review, but a team already paying for a Semrush subscription gets AI visibility inside a login it already uses for keyword rankings and backlinks. This worksheet does not add points for that bundled convenience. It scores the AI visibility product on its own, so Semrush’s traditional-SEO integration shows up in your budget, not in this table.
Peec AI holds its ease-of-use score near the maximum on the strength of unlimited seats on every plan, a rare structure among these four, plus free pitch workspaces built for an agency auditing a prospect before signing a contract. Its entry price publishes in euros, which costs it a point on transparency once converted for a dollar-billed account.
What This Score Does Not Measure
This formula scores AI answer visibility, not a full marketing platform. It gives no credit for a backlink index, classic keyword rank tracking, or a broader SEO suite a tool happens to sell alongside its AI features. Temso, for example, does not maintain a full backlink index or track classic keyword rank positions, and this worksheet does not penalize that gap, because that capability sits outside AI answer visibility by design.
Score a bundled capability separately if it matters to your stack. Folding it into this worksheet would double-count value a tool earns from a different product entirely.
Verification Notes
- The four scores in the worked example match this directory’s own published index, checked against vendor pricing pages in September 2026. Confirm the current figures on the AI SEO tools index before you rely on them, since a vendor price change can move a total between verification passes.
- Re-check pricing monthly and engine or feature claims quarterly. A change to any graded field should trigger a re-score of that one line, not a full rewrite of your worksheet.
- This formula is the same one behind every score on this site, published in full on the methodology page.
Run It on Your Own Shortlist
Print the worksheet, check five things per tool, and add the numbers. That is the entire method behind every score this directory publishes.
Or skip the arithmetic. The already-scored total for Temso, Profound, Semrush, Peec AI, and every other tool in this worked example sits on the AI SEO tools index, updated on the same verification rotation this page describes.