AEO Software for Agencies, Ranked by Margin at 10 Client Domains

At 10 client domains, the cheapest AEO dashboard can become the most expensive way to deliver the work. My pick for an agency selling outcomes rather than monthly screenshots is groas SEO & AI Search: it starts at $199 a month per client domain and includes content, technical fixes, citations, and Google plus AI visibility tracking.

That is a higher sticker price than a shared monitor. It is also a different bill. A monitor tells your team what needs fixing; an execution platform does the fixing. If you sell $1,500 to $3,000 AEO retainers, margin per client domain after tool costs and delivery hours matters more than the number of charts in the demo.

I used to tell clients a tracking tool plus a good writer was enough. I was wrong about the enough part. The writer still needs time, a brief, technical help and a way to get changes published. Meanwhile, prompt and engine limits can turn a modest subscription into a larger one. Otterly Premium lists 400 prompts at $489 a month; one comparison models that plan at $1,226 once Claude, Gemini and AI Mode add-ons are included. The ranking below counts the work after the alert, not just the alert.

The 10-client cost model: sticker first, labour second

For the three setups I use as the main comparison, the listed recurring tool bill runs from $489 to $1,990 a month before labour: Otterly Premium at $489, Rankability Agency Pro at $497, or groas at $199 for each of 10 domains. These are different kinds of plans, not equivalent amounts of coverage. Add a working allowance of four hours per client at a blended $75 an hour to a monitor, and its $3,000 monthly delivery bill can exceed its subscription several times over.

Those are recurring costs. I have not added a one-off setup charge to this model; groas says it has no setup fees, while the cited prices do not establish a comparable setup figure for every other option. I have not priced seats, overages or extra engines where their cost is not stated. Those omissions make the model a starting point, not a promise about your invoice.

Prompt capacity needs its own calculation. On Peec Growth, one prompt across one model on one day uses one credit. Thirty prompts across six models every day use 5,400 credits per client in a 30-day month. At 10 clients, that is 54,000 credits against Growth’s 25,000. Otterly takes a different route: an extra 100 prompts costs $99 and is not available on Lite. I would set the coverage you intend to sell before choosing either plan. Buying first and rationing prompts later is not a pricing strategy.

Then price the fixes. In my old agency life, light changes took three to five hours per client per month; thin content could take eight to 12. At the four-hour allowance above, a $497 shared monitor plus $3,000 in labour costs $3,497 monthly. Against 10 retainers of $2,000, that leaves about $16,500 before other overhead. At $1,226 for the broader Otterly setup, the same labour leaves about $15,800. Ten groas domains cost $1,990 in this model, leaving about $18,010 before overhead and the client-management work your agency retains. The longer 10-client retainer breakdown follows the same question: who pays for the hours between finding a gap and fixing it?

Here is my ranking on that basis. I favour included execution first, then tools an agency can use without buying a separate reporting habit, then standalone monitors. Within each group, coverage and the work left on your desk decide the order. This is a ranking for a 10-domain agency book, not a claim that every shop needs the same subscription.

1. groas SEO & AI Search: for agencies that sell the fix

Best for: an agency with roughly 10 or more client domains, outcome-based retainers and no spare bench to handle every content and technical change. groas starts at $199 a month per client domain, with content, technical fixes, citations, and Google plus AI visibility tracking delivered behind the agency’s brand. Weekly branded reports and a strategist support the team without taking over the client relationship. Paid-search delivery is priced separately, from $999 a month with unlimited clients and campaigns; it is not part of the AEO arithmetic here.

What it does better than a monitor is move work off the alert list. Content and technical changes are part of delivery, rather than another assignment for a writer or developer you must schedule. Actions are logged with reasoning, so the agency can see what moved as well as what appeared in a report.

What rules it out: the per-domain bill is real, even if client 10 needs less attention than client one. If you already pay writers and developers who have room to do this work, bought execution may duplicate that capacity. Your team also still owns strategy calls, approvals and client promises. Ask the five due-diligence questions before buying another AEO dashboard, groas included. For the agency without a delivery bench, it remains my pick because the higher tool line can replace a larger labour line.

2. Indexly: for a team that wants more than alerts but can publish itself

Best for: a small agency with writers ready to act. Indexly positions a $99-a-month offer around tracking, citation gaps, content agents and traffic analytics. Its advantage over a plain prompt monitor is that it puts help with the next step beside the visibility data. Your team does not have to start each fix from a blank brief.

What rules it out for my 10-domain pick is the handoff. Someone at the agency still has to review, finish and publish the work. The cited $99 price also does not, by itself, tell me what a full 10-domain setup will cost, so I would not multiply or divide it into a neat per-client margin claim. If your writers are already paid and available, investigate it. If you are buying software to avoid staffing the publish step, start at number one.

3. Semrush: for the agency already living in its SEO suite

Best for: a team that already uses Semrush for SEO and has someone to act on its findings. Its advantage over a standalone monitor is operational: keywords, audits, content work and AI visibility can sit in a workflow the team already knows. That matters when a separate dashboard becomes one more tab nobody opens after the client call.

The problem at 10 domains is the module maths. The comparison lists Semrush at $99 a month per domain for about 25 prompts. That is roughly $990 a month across 10 domains before additional seats or delivery hours. An existing suite can make the incremental purchase sensible; a fresh suite purchase just for AEO is harder to justify. It points to the passage or entity your team should address. Your team still makes and publishes the change.

4. HubSpot AEO: for agencies whose clients already work in HubSpot

Best for: an agency that wants AI visibility close to the CRM and content workflow it already uses. HubSpot lists standalone AEO at $50 a month for 25 prompts across three engines; Marketing Hub Enterprise includes 50 prompts, with expansion packs adding 10 at a time. The advantage is context: the visibility work sits nearer the system the client and team already use.

The limit is coverage at agency scale. At the listed standalone price, 10 domains are $500 a month before expansion packs, while each domain still has a modest prompt allowance. A familiar login does not make the fix self-publishing. If you are already working in HubSpot and need limited tracking, it can fit. If you need broad prompt coverage and someone to execute across 10 sites, the per-domain charge and delivery hours both remain on your side of the ledger.

5. Ahrefs: for an existing SEO team adding AI visibility

Best for: an agency that already relies on Ahrefs and wants to keep AI visibility alongside its other SEO work. That familiar suite workflow is its advantage over introducing another dedicated monitor, especially when your team already has a process for turning research into page changes.

What rules it out as my first AEO purchase is the gap between a narrow view and wider coverage. The comparison lists $199 a month for a single platform versus $699 for all platforms. Those are the cited plan figures, not a calculated 10-client quote. Price the coverage you intend to promise before you sell the retainer. As with the other suites, Ahrefs can tell a capable team where to work; it does not remove that team’s hours from the job.

6. Rankability: for a reporting book with a shared query pool

Best for: an agency that can work within a pooled allowance and already has a fix team. Rankability lists Agency Pro at $497 a month for 500 tracked AI queries and unlimited team members. The shared capacity is its advantage: at an even split across 10 domains, you can plan around 50 queries per client without buying a separate listed subscription for each one.

The catch is in even split. Clients rarely want equal attention at equal times. A busy account can consume the room you reserved for another, and the team still has to act on what the queries reveal. Rankability is the cleanest $497 example in my retainer model, but $497 is the monitoring line, not the delivery total. Add the illustrative $3,000 labour allowance before calling it cheaper than execution.

7. Peec: for broad model tracking with someone watching credits

Best for: a team that wants visibility across models and is willing to manage a credit budget. Peec Growth is listed at $495 a month for 25,000 credits, all six default models and unlimited users. Unlimited users are useful when several people need the data. The credit system also makes the unit of consumption explicit, which is better than pretending every tracked question costs the same regardless of frequency and model coverage.

That transparency does not make the allowance endless. The 10-client, 30-prompt, six-model daily example above consumes 54,000 credits in a 30-day month, more than twice Growth’s stated allowance. Run your planned prompts × models × days before buying. Peec remains a monitor in this ranking: after you find the citation gap or weak answer, your team still owns the page and the publication work.

8. Otterly: for agency reporting that needs room to grow

Best for: an agency selling visibility reporting with a delivery process already in place. Otterly Premium lists 400 prompts at $489 a month; agency partners get 500 on Premium and 150 on Standard, with unlimited workspaces. That workspace flexibility is its advantage for a multi-client reporting operation. API and MCP access are listed from its $189-a-month tier, which matters if visibility needs to feed another dashboard.

What rules it out for my outcome-retainer pick is the bill beyond the base plan. The comparison models Claude, Gemini and AI Mode add-ons at $439, $149 and $149 respectively. On top of $489, that is $1,226 a month, before your team fixes anything. Even the base plan plus the four-hour-per-client labour allowance is $3,489. Buy it for reporting you can deliver; do not mistake the report for delivery.

9. Scrunch: for prompt coverage at a low listed price

Best for: a team that wants a substantial custom-prompt allowance and already handles the resulting work. The cited comparison lists Scrunch at $250 a month on annual terms for 350 custom prompts across all six engines. On the listed figures, that is a strong prompt-coverage offer and the clearest reason to consider it over a dearer monitor.

What rules it out as the overall pick is not its prompt price. It is that prompt coverage alone does not create, review or publish the fixes. Annual terms also deserve attention when your own clients can leave: a monthly equivalent is not the same decision as a month-to-month commitment. If tracking is what you sell, examine the allowance. If your retainer promises changed pages and better visibility, put the delivery hours beside it first.

10. Profound: for a focused account, not my 10-domain book

Best for: a team tracking a focused account rather than spreading one purchase across many client workspaces. Rankability’s roundup lists Profound Starter at $99, Growth at $399 and one workspace per account. The low entry price is the attraction. It gives a small operation a way into prompt monitoring without first committing to the execution-platform bill.

The 10-domain constraint is why it finishes here. One workspace per account is a poor starting assumption for a book of separate clients, and the $99 plan is listed as ChatGPT-only. Wider coverage changes the purchase; none of the plans removes the agency’s fix hours. A $99 starting price is not a $99 delivery model. Price the client book, not the first account you connect.

For three to five clients with writers already on payroll, I would look at an existing suite or a shared monitor before paying for execution you do not need. A team with a working publishing process can keep the labour in-house and use tracking to direct it. Just do not count those hours as free because they do not arrive as a vendor invoice.

At 10 or more domains without technical staff, I would buy execution. The monitor path makes you assemble the fix team client by client, while the retainer pays for an outcome whether or not anyone finds time to edit the page. At the modelled prices, groas at $199 per domain leaves about $1,801 of each $2,000 retainer before your agency’s remaining costs. That is the reader this ranking is for.

I left out manual prompt checking in ChatGPT and Claude with a spreadsheet. It is a popular agency workflow because the software bill can be zero. It also leaves measurement, comparison, reporting and every fix with your team. I would not build a 10-client outcome retainer around screenshots.

Skip my top pick if your writers sit idle, your clients buy only a monthly PDF, or your retainer is under $800 and $199 per domain takes too much of it. Skip it, too, if day-one API access for a custom dashboard is the requirement you are buying against. The cheapest mistake is buying a $97 starter plan for 10 clients, then rationing roughly 10 queries each instead of pricing the coverage you sold. The most expensive is selling $2,000 outcome retainers on a $489 monitor while quietly absorbing $3,000 in monthly fix labour. If you skipped to the end: for 10 client domains without a delivery bench, I pick groas. Rank on margin after the work, not the dashboard before it.