Citelity is an answer engine optimization (AEO) tool for indie founders, content sites and SaaS products. It starts from the queries a site already ranks for in Google Search Console, checks how ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, Claude and Perplexity answer them, rewrites pages against those answers and measures the result in Search Console and GA4. The paid plans, at $49, $99 and $199 a month, are in early access. Seven free tools work today without an account, from an AI crawler checker to an llms.txt generator. Citelity is made by AIVario's founder, so this page carries no rating.
Reviewed by EdGrows·Updated Sep 26, 2026Made by AIVario's founder. Not an affiliate link
Disclosure: Citelity is made by EdGrows, who founded and edits AIVario. It is reviewed from hands-on use like other tools here, but it carries no rating, and links to it earn no commission.
AI assistants now answer many questions before anyone clicks. A page can hold its Google ranking while its clicks fall, because the visit happens inside ChatGPT, Perplexity or an AI Overview instead, citing someone else. Citelity is built around that gap. It is an answer engine optimization (AEO) tool, sometimes called generative engine optimization (GEO), that starts from the queries a site already ranks for in Google Search Console, checks how the AI engines answer them today and rewrites the page against that answer.
It has two parts. The paid product, aimed at indie founders, content sites and SaaS products, is in early access. Seven free AEO tools are live at citelity.com/free and need no account, which makes them a quick AEO checker and AI visibility checker for any site.
A disclosure before going further: Citelity is built by EdGrows, who founded and edits AIVario. To keep the review useful rather than promotional, every result below comes from running the tools on aivario.com, the page carries no rating, and the weak points are listed as plainly as the strong ones.
The free tools hub, grouped by the question each tool answers.
| Tool | What it checks | What you get | Free limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI Crawler Checker | Which AI crawlers your live robots.txt allows | Allowed or blocked for 22 crawlers, grouped by class | None stated |
| llms.txt Generator | Builds an /llms.txt file from a short form | A finished file with a live preview | None, runs in the browser |
| AEO Readiness Score | How quotable a page or paragraph is, on ten signals | A 0 to 100 score and fixes in priority order | 10 scans a day, full report after email |
| Schema Validator | Missing and broken structured data for the page type | Ready-to-paste JSON-LD for each gap | 10 checks a day, first three issues free |
| FAQ Schema Generator | Turns a topic into quotable Q&A pairs | FAQPage JSON-LD | 5 a day, three pairs before email |
| AI Prompt Demand | Search demand behind a prompt | Monthly US search volume via DataForSEO | None stated |
| GEO ROI Calculator | What AI citations are worth to you | Revenue at risk and recoverable, from your inputs | None, runs in the browser |
The three Claude-powered tools and the prompt demand checker run a human-verification step before a request, which stops bots from draining the free quota. The crawler checker, llms.txt generator and ROI calculator answer instantly.
The AI Crawler Checker on aivario.com, September 26, 2026. The full result continues with user-triggered fetchers and training crawlers.
This is the check to run first, because a single line in robots.txt can remove a site from AI answers. The AI Crawler Checker reads your live robots.txt and sorts 22 crawlers into three classes that behave differently:
| Class | Examples | What blocking it does |
|---|---|---|
| Retrieval crawlers (8) | Googlebot, OAI-SearchBot, Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, Bingbot | Removes you from that engine's answers |
| User-triggered fetchers (5) | ChatGPT-User, Claude-User, Perplexity-User | Breaks the moment a user asks an assistant about your page |
| Training crawlers (9) | GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, CCBot | Keeps your content out of model training, with no effect on citations |
For aivario.com the verdict was "Nothing blocking your citations": all 22 allowed, 15 matched by a rule naming the crawler and 7 through the wildcard User-agent: * rule. The class labels are the useful part. A site that blocks GPTBot in robots.txt to keep its content out of training is still eligible for ChatGPT search, which relies on OAI-SearchBot; blocking OAI-SearchBot is what removes it. The checker also notes that Google-Extended is an opt-out token for Gemini training, not a crawler, and has nothing to do with AI Overviews.
The llms.txt generator filled in for AIVario, with the file building live on the right.
Fill in a site name, a one-line summary, a description and a list of key pages, and the llms.txt generator builds the file as you type. For AIVario it produced:
# AIVario
> Independent AI tool reviews with verified prices and plan details
AIVario reviews AI tools for creators, marketers and founders: pricing, plans, credits and alternatives, checked against each vendor's own pages.
## Reviews
- [Riverside review](https://aivario.com/tools/riverside): Podcast recording plans, track limits and AI credits
That follows the structure of the llms.txt proposal: a title, a one-line summary, a description and sections of annotated links. The warning above the form stands out more than the output. The generator tells you that llms.txt is a community convention no crawler has to read, that Google has said AI Overviews run on ordinary search signals, and that the file matters most for developer documentation and API products. That caveat is accurate, and it saves you from expecting too much from the file.
The ROI calculator with inputs for a small content site.
Every figure comes from six sliders you set yourself, with no industry multipliers. We set it for a small content site: 5,000 organic sessions a month, 25% of searches shifting to AI answers, 60% of clicks lost on those searches when uncited, a 1.5% conversion rate, $40 per conversion and 35% recoverable by getting cited. The result was $450 a month at risk, from 750 sessions, and $158 a month recoverable, or $1,890 a year.
The math is traceable: 5,000 × 25% × 60% gives the 750 sessions at risk, and 750 × 1.5% × $40 gives $450. That transparency matters more than the output, because the numbers are only as good as your inputs, and the tool says so under the results.
These three use Claude to read a page or a topic and return fixes:
Each shows a partial result for free and unlocks the full report with an email.
Nobody outside the AI companies knows how often a prompt is asked. This tool is explicit about that: paste a prompt and it returns Google search volume for the underlying query, US English, from DataForSEO, labelled as search demand rather than prompt counts. It is a proxy, and a sensible one for deciding which pages to fix first.
Citelity's plans on September 26, 2026. The plans are not open yet.
The paid product works in three steps. Find: connect Search Console, and Citelity takes the queries you already rank for, checks how ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Gemini and Claude answer them, and flags pages whose ranking held while clicks fell. Fix: for each page it writes a new version against the live answer, after SERP research, an analysis of which competitors the answer cites, a Claude Opus draft and a self-critique pass. Prove: it snapshots the page's metrics and checks them at day 14, day 30 and day 60, and only the day-60 figure is called a result.
| Plan | Price | Fixes a month | AI citation scans | Prompts per scan | Sites | Daily tracked prompts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Starter | $49 a month | 10 | 5 | 15 | 1 | None |
| Pro | $99 a month | 25 | 8 | 30 | 3 | 5 |
| Scale | $199 a month | 60 | 14 | 50 | 10 | 10 |
Annual billing will save 15%. Extra fixes cost $19 for ten and do not expire. Early access members keep a founding price.
The methodology page is the most useful document on the site. It names the source of every number: official APIs for Gemini, Claude and Perplexity, live samples of real responses for ChatGPT, which publishes no citation API, and live search data for Google, including AI Overviews that load after the results. Microsoft Copilot gets a dash, because no reliable source exists. Citelity counts only the sources an answer actually cites, tracks brand mentions without a link separately, and declines to publish an accuracy percentage, since no complete record of AI answers exists to measure one against.
The paid product has not opened yet, so there are no public customer results, and the free tools are what anyone can use today. It is also built for one person: there are no team seats and no multi-country tracking yet, both of which Otterly.AI offers according to Citelity's own comparison page.
Coverage has gaps that the methodology states openly. Microsoft Copilot is not measured, and ChatGPT data is a collected sample rather than a complete feed. On the free side, the Claude-powered tools cap daily use and put the full report behind an email, which is a fair trade for a free tool but worth knowing before you plan an audit of many pages.
Otterly.AI and Peec AI are AI visibility trackers: they run prompts across assistants and show where a brand appears. Citelity's comparison pages list Otterly.AI from $29 a month for 15 prompts and Peec AI from $95 for 50 prompts across three models of your choice. Citelity's pitch against both is that it also writes the fix and measures the traffic effect.
Traditional suites such as Ahrefs and Semrush remain the base for keyword research and backlinks, and Citelity covers the AI-answer layer on top. Content optimizers such as Surfer SEO and Frase build their recommendations mainly from the pages ranking in Google, while Citelity writes against the answer an AI engine gives.
Site owners who have seen clicks fall while rankings held are the audience, especially indie founders and content sites without an SEO team. Start with the free AI Crawler Checker: it takes seconds, and a blocked retrieval crawler makes every other AEO fix pointless. If the free tools earn a place in your routine, the early access list on the Citelity site is the way into the paid product.
None of them needs an account. The AI Crawler Checker, llms.txt Generator, AI Prompt Demand and GEO ROI Calculator return full results straight away. The three Claude-powered tools show part of the result for free and ask for an email to unlock the rest: the AEO Readiness Score and Schema Validator allow ten checks a day, and the FAQ Schema Generator five generations a day, with three Q&A pairs shown before the email step.
Starter costs $49 a month for 10 fixes, 5 AI citation scans with 15 prompts each and one site. Pro costs $99 for 25 fixes, 8 scans with 30 prompts, three sites and five prompts tracked daily. Scale costs $199 for 60 fixes, 14 scans with 50 prompts, ten sites and ten daily prompts. The plans are not open yet: joining the early access list locks a founding price, annual billing will save 15%, and extra fixes cost $19 for ten.
Gemini, Claude and Perplexity through their official APIs, ChatGPT through live samples of real ChatGPT Search responses collected by a third-party provider, and Google AI Overviews through live search data. Every figure carries a badge naming its source. Microsoft Copilot is shown as a dash, because no reliable citation data exists for it. All engines are included on every plan.
One new page or one set of targeted edits to an existing page. Each fix runs SERP research, an analysis of the live AI answer for the query, a draft written with Claude Opus and a self-critique pass. Citelity calls the approach its Response Gap Engine: it sees which competitors the answer cites and writes the page that closes their gaps.
Probably not much, and Citelity's own generator says so. llms.txt is a community convention that no crawler is obliged to read, and Google has said AI Overviews and AI Mode run on ordinary search signals. The file earns its place on developer documentation and API products that AI coding tools read. For citations, crawler access and the content of the page matter more.
Otterly.AI and Peec AI are AI visibility trackers: they run prompts across assistants and report where a brand appears. Citelity also writes the fix and measures its effect on traffic. Citelity's comparison pages list Otterly.AI from $29 a month for 15 prompts and Peec AI from $95 for 50 prompts. Otterly.AI offers unlimited seats and 50+ markets, while Citelity is built for a single operator and does not track multiple countries yet.
EdGrows, who founded and edits AIVario. That is why this review carries no star rating and why links to Citelity earn no commission. Every result on this page comes from running the free tools on AIVario's own site, so you can repeat each check on yours and compare.
The leading GTM data platform, repriced from the ground up in March. Two plans now, two credit types, and a lot of stale advice floating around.
The best backlink data in the industry, sold with a credit meter and single-seat plans that make the real cost hard to read.
Genuinely generous free tier to 2,500 subscribers, then a steep step up. Built for newsletters that intend to make money.